Debate No. 3: Building a strong lineup vs. building a strong pitching staff. Which is more important? (Debate concluded/thread open)

[TopGunn#22]

Both debaters did excellent work.  My opinion always has been and will continue to be,  is that to win in the Post Season, you've got to PITCH!  Great hitting can really benefit a team over 162 games because, for the most part it's "consistent."  It's always there.  Even when the Twins were setting a major league record for HR's, they were still pitching at a high level.  The flaw in the Twins that season was that their "all or nothing---swing for the fences" mentality on offense eventually got shut down by elite pitching in the Post Season.   Anytime the Twins (in particular) have been good, throughout their history, they have pitched well.  One reason those great Brooklyn Dodger teams were only able to beat the Yankees in ONE World Series was that Dodger pitching was always somewhat inferior to Yankee pitching. And in 1955 Dodger pitching out did the Yankees.    And as others have pointed out, pitching staff's "transform" once the Post Season starts.  Some of the more inferior arms are pushed further back and the best arms get the majority of innings.  In the Post Season teams with "elite arms" can do MORE with LESS.  It's a great discussion point, but the days of building deep starting staffs like the Orioles and Dodgers did in the 60's thru 80's are gone.  Bullpen's are radically different due to the way starting rotations are so over-managed with pitch counts and innings limits.  Another good debate would be "what kind of pitching staff should be constructed to simply get a team to the playoffs where that staff could then be reimagined into a Post Season juggernaut?

[Squirrel]

And the winners are:

H2H Debater A: @Vanimal46
H2H Debater B: @Danchat

Thank both participants for an excellent debate ... it ends in a tie game! And in this instance, we don't come back starting with a runner on 2nd ...  

Well done, you two!

(Poll is now closed, but the thread remains active for further discussion.)

Look for our next debate, the Buxton trade debate, to start on Monday! And, as always, if you want to participate in a debate and/or have any debate topics in mind, please email @Otto von Ballpark or @Squirrel.

[Vanimal46]

Good debate, @Danchat! I think we came to the same conclusion by the end. Offense and pitching are important in the regular season, but when runs are at a premium in the postseason, offense comes out on top ?

[Danchat]

4 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Good debate, @Danchat! I think we came to the same conclusion by the end. Offense and pitching are important in the regular season, but when runs are at a premium in the postseason, offense comes out on top ?

Ah, so it was you all along... ?

I had done some more research on pitching vs hitting in the playoffs, but I just couldn't find anything after crunching some numbers for a good hour. So yeah, that got kind of frustrating. ?

But on the topic of the debate, I think it's still very close to a 50-50% importance between the two. Especially since hitting and pitching happen in a vacuum unlike other sports, where time of possession or players who play both offense and defense could affect things. 

[bean5302]

12 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

This paragraph feels like 2 + 2 = banana.  

At the end of the day no amount of great pitching can save a flailing lineup.  That was the point.

So the pitchers get absolutely no credit for putting up zeroes? Got it.

[TheLeviathan]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

So the pitchers get absolutely no credit for putting up zeroes? Got it.

Quite the opposite.  Milwaukee's pitching staff pitched very well.....but there is no amount of "great" you can pitch if your offense scores a grand total of 2 runs the first three games.

At some point you have to score.  

IMO the best way to win is to minimize your weak points, have depth, be flexible, and build for consistency.  A good offense is easier to do that with on nearly every front.  I'd also bet good hitting teams tend to be less erratic in their year to year performances as well.  (Though I would love to see data) Pitching is weird.

[bean5302]

17 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Quite the opposite.  Milwaukee's pitching staff pitched very well.....but there is no amount of "great" you can pitch if your offense scores a grand total of 2 runs the first three games.

At some point you have to score.  

IMO the best way to win is to minimize your weak points, have depth, be flexible, and build for consistency.  A good offense is easier to do that with on nearly every front.  I'd also bet good hitting teams tend to be less erratic in their year to year performances as well.  (Though I would love to see data) Pitching is weird.

Again, so who gets credit for Milwaukee not scoring? Your point is Milwaukee would have scored more than 0 runs if their offense was good. Maybe? They were good enough to score the 12th most runs in baseball last year. The best scoring team in MLB was the Astros, scoring 5.32 runs per game. The Brewers scored 4.56 runs per game. If we give the Brewers an extra 0.76 runs per game, do they win the series against Atlanta? Nope.

The Astros managed 2.67 runs per game in the World Series and were shut out twice despite having the best offense in baseball. Pitching wins playoffs.

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, bean5302 said:

Again, so who gets credit for Milwaukee not scoring? Your point is Milwaukee would have scored more than 0 runs if their offense was good. Maybe? They were good enough to score the 12th most runs in baseball last year. The best scoring team in MLB was the Astros, scoring 5.32 runs per game. The Brewers scored 4.56 runs per game. If we give the Brewers an extra 0.76 runs per game, do they win the series against Atlanta? Nope.

The Astros managed 2.67 runs per game in the World Series and were shut out twice despite having the best offense in baseball. Pitching wins playoffs.

You are not supported by the data offered in this debate.  Continuing a discussion wherein one party is denying evidence doesn't feel like a good use of time.

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

You are not supported by the data offered in this debate.  Continuing a discussion wherein one party is denying evidence doesn't feel like a good use of time.

This is a discussion outside of the debate. Just like the discussion of Puckett vs. Mauer saw a lot of information not included in the debate. The Debaters are not infalliable and they did not cover every possible facet of baseball. If you have something to contribute, feel free. Be aware, people (including me) may or may not agree with you, though.

[Danchat]

Can't resist posting this:

[Major League Ready]

Really well done by both parties!  The very first post was an eye opener for me.  Over the years I have heard the sayings about pitching and defense so many times and the actual results tell a different story.  Very education.  Thanks for the effort!