They say good pitching always beats good hitting...

[GotowarMissAgnes]

"Suppose you want to test the claim
"Pitching is 75% of baseball." If this were true, you would conclude
that the teams with the best pitching would be much more likely to win
the pennant than the teams with the best hitting. However, this isn't
the case. The league leaders in fewest runs allowed (which is both
pitching and fielding) win the pennant about half the time; the league
leaders in runs scored (which includes all of hitting) win just as
often. (Note the definition of offense here: if you measure hitting by
an incomplete measure such as batting average, you would conclude that
pitching is much more important.) Other unreasonable conclusions also
follow; for example, a team with 75% of its value in pitching would
never trade a regular pitcher for a regular hitter. Thus the claim must
be rejected. But if 75% is replaced by a number close to 40%, the
conclusions become reasonable. This is how a sabermetric argument
works."

From: http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabin ... festo.html

[GotowarMissAgnes]

Bill James' study on this, by the way, is in the 1981 Baseball Abstract, mentioned here http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/20 ... rom_16.php

[GotowarMissAgnes]

Bill James' study on this, by the way, is in the 1981 Baseball Abstract, mentioned here http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/20 ... rom_16.php

Of course, his Win Shares book provides a similar breakdown, again based on data, not thin air.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

From Neyer's article"

"Baseball is 75 percent pitching."

Which is, of course, patently ridiculous.



Don't trust me. Tomorrow on your lunch hour, head to your local library and find a baseball encyclopedia. Make a list of all the pennant winners in baseball history, and note whether they led their league in runs scored, runs allowed, or both. Throw out the last of those, the teams that led in both categories, and you know what you'll find? That the number of pennant winners who led their league in runs scored is almost exactly the same as the number of pennant winners who led their league in runs allowed. I've done the work, but you can discover this for yourself if you don't trust me.

Don't trust me. Do it. Read James' Win Shares. Read Thorn and Palmer.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

If pitching is 75% or more of the game and always beats good hitting, why don't teams spend 75% or more of their payroll on pitching?

[Dan Charette]

This argument really has 2 different parts.
1 is good pitching vs, good hitting from a team point of view.
2 is the abstract of the batter against the pitcher without looking at team results.
These are 2 whole different arguments.
If you look at it from the team's results then a multitude of factors become involved.

In the abstract of the pitcher against the batter without looking at the end result . Just 1 on 1 if the pitcher makes his pitches, he'll get the batters out most of the time. Very few balls will be hit hard.
The pitcher can dominate even the great hitters when he's making his pitches.
And with the '69 Mets , their pitching carried them. They had guys like Kranepool, Al Weiss, Bud Harrelson, Ron Svoboda, Tommy Agee. This was one of the weakest hitting teams in baseball.
They won because their pitching dominated. Seaver, Koosman, and a young Nolen Ryan.
But a team with bad pitching will never win.

Dan the Bluesman

[brandnew]

If pitching is 75% or more of the game and always beats good hitting, why don't teams spend 75% or more of their payroll on pitching?

Because you only need 5 starters, and 8-9 position players... and bullpen guys are much cheaper.

[TheYanks04]

This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.

[PlayingWithFire]

This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.

They won a World Series didn't they?

I'll get this thread locked up with this

[AcidRock23]

This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.

I thought James was a Royals' fan?

As much as anyone can be a Royals fan these days?