Dan Charette wrote:
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
First of all, the Mets were not "the weakest hitting team in baseball." The average NL team that year scored 4.05 runs per game. The Mets scored 3.90 runs per game. It's a total and complete myth that they were a bad hitting team. They were a team that had great pitching (allowing 3.34 runs per game) and mediocre hitting, just a hair below average.
And that combination in reverse happens a few times, too. The 1976 Reds and Red Sox, for example, were a little below average in pitching and the leading scoring team. The 1987 Twins were a little below average in pitching.
And, other than argument by tautology, the rest of your comment makes no sense.
Have you never heard a pitcher say "I made my pitch, but he just beat me."?
Because I hear them say it ALL the time.