Jump to content

Can you win with all defense and no offense SS?


NoVaO

Recommended Posts

Wasting time developing a no-hit SS would be incredibly stupid even if you were the 1986 Pittsburgh Pirates or the 1997 Seattle Mariners.

When your FO has preached PITCHING and DEFENSE over and over again as their primary priorities, please point out to me the part where hitting is a concern? And so if they field players that they think fulfill their philosophy, then they're are doing what they're are supposed to do. Your beef is with their philosophy, not whether LH can ever hit at the MLB level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Wasting time developing a no-hit SS would be incredibly stupid even if you were the 1986 Pittsburgh Pirates or the 1997 Seattle Mariners.

That's exactly what the said about Lazzeri, Maranville, Donnie Bush, Peckinpaugh, Woodie Held, Crosetti, Zoilo Versalles, Roger Metzger........ I could go on if you want me to.

ALL of those guys were pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your FO has preached PITCHING and DEFENSE over and over again as their primary priorities, please point out to me the part where hitting is a concern? And so if they field players that they think fulfill their philosophy, then there are doing what their are supposed to do. Your beef is with their philosophy, not whether LH can ever hit at the MLB level.

Just because they have outlined their priorities doesn't mean that they are doing the right thing by making a good defensive/poor offensive player a starter (or whatever they want to make him). Scoring runs is the most important part of the game. And haven't we just seen what a poor offensive team can do to a bullpen and SP staff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, based on some of the posts in this thread you would think the consensus disagreed with the career baseball men. But then again the consensus here has never been wrong has it?

Eh. Before the bullpen imploded, the biggest problem was scoring runs, not the defense up the middle. So, even if you plug the bullpen up, you still have a team that is offensively not up to snuff for the AL, especially the AL East. Trembley does have a good point about having good defense up the middle, but he doesn't mention covering that offense, which I'm sure he knows about. He's not stupid. But if he thinks this team will magically come together with a crappy slap hitting shortstop with an above average glove, then he is a really stupid career baseball man.

Go ahead, get a defensive specialist for short. However, you got to generate about 50 more RBI's out of RF, CF and 1B to compensate (I pulled 50 RBI's out of my butt, sounded good. A real number cruncher can figure out the real number, but the notion is still valid). Whatever you lose offensively between Tejada and whoever (we assume Hernandez) plus however many RBI's we were already deficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh. Before the bullpen imploded, the biggest problem was scoring runs, not the defense up the middle. So, even if you plug the bullpen up, you still have a team that is offensively not up to snuff for the AL, especially the AL East. Trembley does have a good point about having good defense up the middle, but he doesn't mention covering that offense, which I'm sure he knows about. He's not stupid. But if he thinks this team will magically come together with a crappy slap hitting shortstop with an above average glove, then he is a really stupid career baseball man.

Go ahead, get a defensive specialist for short. However, you got to generate about 50 more RBI's out of RF, CF and 1B to compensate (I pulled 50 RBI's out of my butt, sounded good. A real number cruncher can figure out the real number, but the notion is still valid). Whatever you lose offensively between Tejada and whoever (we assume Hernandez) plus however many RBI's we were already deficient.

I'd say that number is probably closer to 70 than 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because they have outlined their priorities doesn't mean that they are doing the right thing by making a good defensive/poor offensive player a starter (or whatever they want to make him). Scoring runs is the most important part of the game. And haven't we just seen what a poor offensive team can do to a bullpen and SP staff?

Says who? You?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that number is probably closer to 70 than 50.

Like I said, 50 sounded like a nice round number. Let Drungo crunch the real numbers. It probably is closer to 70, maybe even more. You can pencil Tejada in for about 75 in a bad year, how many will Hernandez get you, maybe 25? That's 50 right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too many teams have won games where they have scored 0-1 runs. So I would say the baseball gods have my back here.

Even the best defenses playing behind the greatest pitchers in the history of the game are bound to give up 1.5 runs a game over a season. That means you gotta score 2 runs on average a game over a season. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...