Pitching=90% of baseball.

[UK1679666180]

See the Pujols/Lidge AB for reference. All you need are the two pitches from that AB from a great pitcher and a great hitter and why good pitching retires good hitting.

 

Lidge's 1st slider was unhittable, the second slider was that would be delivered by an avg. pitcher and a horrible mistake.

 

A great pitcher is more valuable than a great hitter, especially a starting pitcher.

[goonys evil twin]

Lidge is a great pitcher

Pujols is a great hitter

 

 

The problem with the "great pitching always beats great hitting" theory is not only is it not true, but it doesn't really tell you anything. On average, pitchers will beat hitters. That's the nature of the game. So, in order to have a great game, or more accurately, a great series of games, a pitcher has to win the vast majority of battles. One mistake can lose it. All a hitter has to do to help his team beat that great pitcher is win the battle occasionally.

 

 

You have to have a great team to win a lot. A great can consist of great pitching, great hitting, and great defense. More likely than not though, it will not have all three. Whether it's great pitching, good hitting and average defense. Or good pitching, great hitting and good defense, or any other combination, it takes all aspects of baseball to win.

 

Anybody can highlight a single matchup to try and prove the old conventional wisdom as true. But history tells us it takes a lot more than just great pitching to win consistently.

[UK1679666180]

I think is fair to say there are more great hitters than pitchers these days?

 

From that, hitters will boost their numbers more b/c they face more avg. pitchers than even good ones.

 

Hitters can make their careers off of avg. pitchers and struggle vs. the great ones and still have great numbers.

 

I doubt a pitcher can become a great one by feasting on avg. to below hitters and struggle vs. the great ones.

 

There's the difference, a great pitcher has to be able to retire both the avg. and very good hitters. A great hitter can dominate avg. pitching and struggle vs. the great ones and still be considered a very good hitter.

 

It's the nature of the beast and why the pitcher is clearly the most important player on the field at all times and where everything stems from.

[Tim]

The most important person on the field at all times is the hitter. He has more control over the outcome of the play than any other individual on the field, including the pitcher. Unless you want to look at intentional walks.

[UK1679666180]

The same hitter only ABs 4-5 times per game, the avg SP will likely face around 25 batters. Therefore, whoever that SP is the most important player for each team.

 

The pitcher is the aggressive one, the batter is simply reacting to what he does, he is always the most important one.

[Tim]

The same hitter only ABs 4-5 times per game, the avg SP will likely face around 25 batters. Therefore, whoever that SP is the most important player for each team.

 

The pitcher is the aggressive one, the batter is simply reacting to what he does, he is always the most important one.

If the batter isn't in control of the at bat, he isn't that good. The pitcher loses control the moment the ball is released. The hitter is the one that determines what happens next.

 

All a pitcher can do is try to keep the hitter off balance, put the ball in a tough place to hit and hope.

[UK1679666180]

But, the batter's actions are dictated by the pitcher's not the other way around.

 

The batters job is respond to the actions of the pitcher.

[Tim]

But, the batter's actions are dictated by the pitcher's not the other way around.

 

The batters job is respond to the actions of the pitcher.

Everything the pitcher does is in response to what the batter will allow.

 

 

 

 

Okay, so I'm actually being argumentative here. My honest thoughts are that each plate appearance is a battle for control of the zone. Whoever can win that battle is likely, though not guaranteed, to have the outcome in his favor.

[goonys evil twin]

The pitcher being the most important player on the field doesn't support, at all, the claim that pitching is 90% of baseball. That's just an arbitrary, and inaccurate, statement. Pitching is very important. It's probably beter to have great pitching and just average hitting, than great hitting and just average pitching. But pretending pitching is 90% of the game, and insinuating that all you need to win is pitching is just wrong. Hitting is incredibly important.

[dalgreen]

Great discussion! Too bad this isn't in the baseball discussion section.

 

I'm not sure how one can quantify pitching, but in my opinion, I would take a great pitcher on my team over a great hitter. I know we're dealing with semantics, but I don't think good pitching stops good hitting, though. But I do think great pitching will stop great hitting. The great pitcher does have control over the 27 outs. The great hitter can only have direct control the four or five times he comes to the plate, and that's if he doesn't get the intentional pass. But I don't know how one could quantify it, though.

[XZero771679666304]

Great discussion! Too bad this isn't in the baseball discussion section.

 

I'm not sure how one can quantify pitching, but in my opinion, I would take a great pitcher on my team over a great hitter. I know we're dealing with semantics, but I don't think good pitching stops good hitting, though. But I do think great pitching will stop great hitting. The great pitcher does have control over the 27 outs. The great hitter can only have direct control the four or five times he comes to the plate, and that's if he doesn't get the intentional pass. But I don't know how one could quantify it, though.

 

Pitching does trump hitting, but if I had 5 great starters and a mediocre offense, I would not hesitate to trade a couple of them for a couple of good hitters. Gotta have that balance.

[indifferent]

From an investment perspective, I'd much rather invest big money in a hitter than a pitcher. Ideally, I'd rather try to get great homegrown pitching like the Cubs and when they hit full blown free agency, move on. Any lengthy deal coupled with big money for a pitcher is asking for trouble in my opinion. But I'd do it for a great hitter, not a Beltre type with lofty expectations who puts it together for one year, but a Pujols or Ortiz type. Sure, you can get lucky, but pitchers are just more injury prone with a shorter window usually.

[snoodmonger]

The same hitter only ABs 4-5 times per game, the avg SP will likely face around 25 batters. Therefore, whoever that SP is the most important player for each team.

 

The pitcher is the aggressive one, the batter is simply reacting to what he does, he is always the most important one.

If the batter isn't in control of the at bat, he isn't that good. The pitcher loses control the moment the ball is released. The hitter is the one that determines what happens next.

 

All a pitcher can do is try to keep the hitter off balance, put the ball in a tough place to hit and hope.

 

I'm inclined to agree with UK here.

[goonys evil twin]

Great discussion! Too bad this isn't in the baseball discussion section.

 

I'm not sure how one can quantify pitching, but in my opinion, I would take a great pitcher on my team over a great hitter. I know we're dealing with semantics, but I don't think good pitching stops good hitting, though. But I do think great pitching will stop great hitting. The great pitcher does have control over the 27 outs. The great hitter can only have direct control the four or five times he comes to the plate, and that's if he doesn't get the intentional pass. But I don't know how one could quantify it, though.

 

But how come Roger Clemens has sucked so often in big playoff games? How come great pitching Greg Maddux was never great in the playoffs? How come Randy Johnson can have so many great regular seasons, so many terrible divisional series games, and so many great non divisional playoff games.

 

Great pitchers lose to great hitters, a lot.

 

This myth that great pitching always beats great hitting is just plain wrong.

 

You need both.

[UK1679666180]

A great pitcher will likely have more value than a great hitter simply b/c he has a greater workload than the hitter.

 

Look at batters faced of the top tier pitchers this year (Carpenter, Clemens, Willis, Santana) and compare that to the PAs by Pujols, Lee, A-Rod, etc.

 

You'll see that the pitchers have faced more batters than the batter has faced pitchers.

 

As far as the 90% remark, exaggeration? Sure, but I value pitching more than hitting.

 

I'd rather see Giles on the Cubs than Millwood, but he's the only offensive FA I can say that about.

[UBlink]

One other thought is the effect of mistakes - for the most part, batters can afford to make a lot more mistakes than a pitcher can. One mistake pitch can lose the game. A batter gets more opportunities to learn and recover from his mistakes.

 

Put another way, if I'm hiring a salesman I want a batter, one that can make mistakes, learn from them and keep coming back. If I'm looking for a brain surgeon I want a pitcher (and preferably a real good one).

[goonys evil twin]

One other thought is the effect of mistakes - for the most part, batters can afford to make a lot more mistakes than a pitcher can. One mistake pitch can lose the game. A batter gets more opportunities to learn and recover from his mistakes.

 

Put another way, if I'm hiring a salesman I want a batter, one that can make mistakes, learn from them and keep coming back. If I'm looking for a brain surgeon I want a pitcher (and preferably a real good one).

 

I think pitchers get away with a lot more "mistake" pitches than people acknowledge. I've seen plenty of smashable pitches go by. Two pitches, they both hang in the zone. On one the batter doesn't swing because he's sitting dead red. On the other he knocks it out of the park. The pitcher didn't do anything better or worse on either pitch (assuming he didn't tip on one). A lot of pitches that get too much of the plate and are critiqued by analysts are the same exact pitch that earlier got a guy out. Not all big hits come off mistakes, and not all "mistakes" turn into big hits.

[UK1679666180]

One other thought is the effect of mistakes - for the most part, batters can afford to make a lot more mistakes than a pitcher can. One mistake pitch can lose the game. A batter gets more opportunities to learn and recover from his mistakes.

 

Put another way, if I'm hiring a salesman I want a batter, one that can make mistakes, learn from them and keep coming back. If I'm looking for a brain surgeon I want a pitcher (and preferably a real good one).

 

I think pitchers get away with a lot more "mistake" pitches than people acknowledge. I've seen plenty of smashable pitches go by. Two pitches, they both hang in the zone. On one the batter doesn't swing because he's sitting dead red. On the other he knocks it out of the park. The pitcher didn't do anything better or worse on either pitch (assuming he didn't tip on one). A lot of pitches that get too much of the plate and are critiqued by analysts are the same exact pitch that earlier got a guy out. Not all big hits come off mistakes, and not all "mistakes" turn into big hits.

 

Doesn't that add validity to the great pitchers though?

 

If more hittable pitches go by than most expect, wouldn't that also include even the best hitters hitting a pitcher's pitch.

 

If Lidge throws 2 more sliders like he did with the 1st pitch, Houston is getting ready to play game 1 of the WS, instead of game 6 of the NLCS.

[Holy Cow]

One other thought is the effect of mistakes - for the most part, batters can afford to make a lot more mistakes than a pitcher can. One mistake pitch can lose the game. A batter gets more opportunities to learn and recover from his mistakes.

 

Put another way, if I'm hiring a salesman I want a batter, one that can make mistakes, learn from them and keep coming back. If I'm looking for a brain surgeon I want a pitcher (and preferably a real good one).

 

I think pitchers get away with a lot more "mistake" pitches than people acknowledge. I've seen plenty of smashable pitches go by. Two pitches, they both hang in the zone. On one the batter doesn't swing because he's sitting dead red. On the other he knocks it out of the park. The pitcher didn't do anything better or worse on either pitch (assuming he didn't tip on one). A lot of pitches that get too much of the plate and are critiqued by analysts are the same exact pitch that earlier got a guy out. Not all big hits come off mistakes, and not all "mistakes" turn into big hits.

 

Doesn't that add validity to the great pitchers though?

 

If more hittable pitches go by than most expect, wouldn't that also include even the best hitters hitting a pitcher's pitch.

 

If Lidge throws 2 more sliders like he did with the 1st pitch, Houston is getting ready to play game 1 of the WS, instead of game 6 of the NLCS.

 

No, because Pujols can choose not to swing at them. An AB is like a dance between the pitcher and hitter, with both playing an equal role. Nothing that one of them does has any meaning independent of what the other did.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

An AB is like a dance between the pitcher and hitter, with both playing an equal role. Nothing that one of them does has any meaning independent of what the other did.

 

I don't think that's true. A pitcher can make a perfect pitch, but the batter still has the ability to do something productive with it. The batter has a slight edge from being the one who acts second. Whether that makes hitting more valuable or important, I don't know.

[Holy Cow]

An AB is like a dance between the pitcher and hitter, with both playing an equal role. Nothing that one of them does has any meaning independent of what the other did.

 

I don't think that's true. A pitcher can make a perfect pitch, but the batter still has the ability to do something productive with it. The batter has a slight edge from being the one who acts second. Whether that makes hitting more valuable or important, I don't know.

 

Maybe in that situation the perfect pitch is a breaking ball in the dirt that the batter can't do anything with. There is no such thing as an absolute perfect pitch, only a perfect pitch in relation to what the batter is expecting/trying to do.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

An AB is like a dance between the pitcher and hitter, with both playing an equal role. Nothing that one of them does has any meaning independent of what the other did.

 

I don't think that's true. A pitcher can make a perfect pitch, but the batter still has the ability to do something productive with it. The batter has a slight edge from being the one who acts second. Whether that makes hitting more valuable or important, I don't know.

 

Maybe in that situation the perfect pitch is a breaking ball in the dirt that the batter can't do anything with. There is no such thing as an absolute perfect pitch, only a perfect pitch in relation to what the batter is expecting/trying to do.

 

The batter always has the ability to have the perfect response though, whether that response is taking a pitch for the ball, or hitting it 500 feet.

[UK1679666180]

One other thought is the effect of mistakes - for the most part, batters can afford to make a lot more mistakes than a pitcher can. One mistake pitch can lose the game. A batter gets more opportunities to learn and recover from his mistakes.

 

Put another way, if I'm hiring a salesman I want a batter, one that can make mistakes, learn from them and keep coming back. If I'm looking for a brain surgeon I want a pitcher (and preferably a real good one).

 

I think pitchers get away with a lot more "mistake" pitches than people acknowledge. I've seen plenty of smashable pitches go by. Two pitches, they both hang in the zone. On one the batter doesn't swing because he's sitting dead red. On the other he knocks it out of the park. The pitcher didn't do anything better or worse on either pitch (assuming he didn't tip on one). A lot of pitches that get too much of the plate and are critiqued by analysts are the same exact pitch that earlier got a guy out. Not all big hits come off mistakes, and not all "mistakes" turn into big hits.

 

Doesn't that add validity to the great pitchers though?

 

If more hittable pitches go by than most expect, wouldn't that also include even the best hitters hitting a pitcher's pitch.

 

If Lidge throws 2 more sliders like he did with the 1st pitch, Houston is getting ready to play game 1 of the WS, instead of game 6 of the NLCS.

 

No, because Pujols can choose not to swing at them. An AB is like a dance between the pitcher and hitter, with both playing an equal role. Nothing that one of them does has any meaning independent of what the other did.

 

He could have chosen to not swing at the 1st pitch, but he did and missed pretty badly b/c of the quality of the pitch rather than an error by the hitter who is the best one in MLB.

 

The hitter is always in a defensive mode, even 2-0, 3-0, he might have certain advantages but is in a mode of defense.

 

Whether it is fear or depending on the actions of the pitcher.

 

The more fear, the more defensive he becomes.

[stitchface]

I think it could be fair to say that 90 percent of baseball is the pitcher-batter confrontation. Since the pitcher is half that battle, it would follow that the pitcher is 45 percent of baseball. More than any other player to be sure.

[UK1679666180]

Watching Oswalt dominate again, it's not b/c the Cards have a poor approach like a Cubs team or lack talent, Oswalt can't be hit.

 

If pitching dominates the game, the FB dominates a great performance on the mound.