If Golden State is revolutionizing basketball... (1 Viewer)

[TheIronSheik]

Iron Sheik is the new Tim.

My apologies for trying to have a semi-fun conversation about something lighthearted. Let's go back to talking about politics and racism.

Sheiky, baby, I'm with you. I started a thread about NFLers playing in thong underwear, and it didn't go over well. In hindsight, I should have said in their jock.Seriously, though, people should be less serious.

Oh, I don't dispute that this topic is a virtual ferris wheel of fun, but the guy is definitely filling the void Tim left when he stopped posting 3+ threads a day. I look forward to TISTAN one day.

Yes. The 3 threads I've started this month are just like Tim. You've made a perfect comparison.

 

[MattFancy]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

That would be the Toronto Blue Jays

 

[Peyton Marino]

I've always thought basketball should be lower scoring. My idea is to change it so that each team has a basket-mover position. The basket would be tied to a rope and the basket-mover would be in charge of yanking the basket up and down kind of like how you work a pinata.

I laughed for a solid 20 seconds.

 

[Thunderlips]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

 

[Peyton Marino]

revolutionizing

 

[Long Ball Larry]

All teams in baseball* are doing all kinds of things to gain advantages in this way using statistics and looking at things in different ways. Read about the Pirates and the way they specifically teach their pitchers to pitch to most closely align to their defensive shifts for each batter. This is just one of countless examples of how baseball teams are using similar concepts to the Warriors (and many other basketball teams). GSW happened to also have an unbelievable defensive coach.

Also, as far as I recall, there is really not any statistical evidence that either good pitching or good hitting is a particular advantage, at least not in the playoffs.

*except the Phillies

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread pretty much reads as a who's who of douchebaggery in the FFA.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

This is a good point. The Royals last year showed that you could be better off spending money on relievers than on starters.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

That would be the Toronto Blue Jays

You would think so but he literally means a team of cloned Pujols.

Again, the whole point of revolutionizing a sport would be to break from the norm and do something not stated for years to be fact. Good pitching beats good hitting only because teams have 1 or 2 guys who are deep threats. If good pitching had to face 9 Albert Pujols's, good pitching wouldn't stand a chance.

So like the Blue Jays this year? Far and away the best offense (historically good at this point) but they have #### pitching. Barely above .500.

No. Not like them. There is no current team like I'm describing.

 

[TheIronSheik]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

That would be the Toronto Blue Jays

You would think so but he literally means a team of cloned Pujols.

Again, the whole point of revolutionizing a sport would be to break from the norm and do something not stated for years to be fact. Good pitching beats good hitting only because teams have 1 or 2 guys who are deep threats. If good pitching had to face 9 Albert Pujols's, good pitching wouldn't stand a chance.

So like the Blue Jays this year? Far and away the best offense (historically good at this point) but they have #### pitching. Barely above .500.

No. Not like them. There is no current team like I'm describing.

I know you're having a tough time with this, but currently no team is doing what I was referencing.

 

[Capella]

The Rays have like a 10 dollar payroll and yet are constantly good because of pitching and defense. It's the way to go.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

That would be the Toronto Blue Jays

You would think so but he literally means a team of cloned Pujols.

Again, the whole point of revolutionizing a sport would be to break from the norm and do something not stated for years to be fact. Good pitching beats good hitting only because teams have 1 or 2 guys who are deep threats. If good pitching had to face 9 Albert Pujols's, good pitching wouldn't stand a chance.

So like the Blue Jays this year? Far and away the best offense (historically good at this point) but they have #### pitching. Barely above .500.

No. Not like them. There is no current team like I'm describing.

I know you're having a tough time with this, but currently no team is doing what I was referencing.

Of course they aren't. There is only one Albert Pujols

 

[Cjw_55106]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

Funny, I told my BIL a couple weeks ago that this is what I would do if I ran a club. They would pitch one inning every day. No day of rest needed.

By the way Sheik, Id argue against you claiming that there a lot of great power hitters in the minors that cant make it to the majors because of their fielding. If you can consistantly hit 25+ HRs, they WILL find a spot for you.

 

[Jack White]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

That would be the Toronto Blue Jays

You would think so but he literally means a team of cloned Pujols.

Again, the whole point of revolutionizing a sport would be to break from the norm and do something not stated for years to be fact. Good pitching beats good hitting only because teams have 1 or 2 guys who are deep threats. If good pitching had to face 9 Albert Pujols's, good pitching wouldn't stand a chance.

So like the Blue Jays this year? Far and away the best offense (historically good at this point) but they have #### pitching. Barely above .500.

No. Not like them. There is no current team like I'm describing.

I know you're having a tough time with this, but currently no team is doing what I was referencing.

Of course they aren't. There is only one Albert Pujols

Even Albert Poo Holes can't hit a homer more than twice a week.

 

[TheIronSheik]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

That would be the Toronto Blue Jays

You would think so but he literally means a team of cloned Pujols.

Again, the whole point of revolutionizing a sport would be to break from the norm and do something not stated for years to be fact. Good pitching beats good hitting only because teams have 1 or 2 guys who are deep threats. If good pitching had to face 9 Albert Pujols's, good pitching wouldn't stand a chance.

So like the Blue Jays this year? Far and away the best offense (historically good at this point) but they have #### pitching. Barely above .500.

No. Not like them. There is no current team like I'm describing.

I know you're having a tough time with this, but currently no team is doing what I was referencing.

Of course they aren't. There is only one Albert Pujols

You got me. I guess you're too smart for this thread.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

Funny, I told my BIL a couple weeks ago that this is what I would do if I ran a club. They would pitch one inning every day. No day of rest needed.

By the way Sheik, Id argue against you claiming that there a lot of great power hitters in the minors that cant make it to the majors because of their fielding. If you can consistantly hit 25+ HRs, they WILL find a spot for you.

Are you saying there are no 25+ HR hitters in the minors? Look, I get what you're saying to an extent. And this whole thread was more of a "what if" than a "let's make it happen" topic.

 

[Guest]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

Funny, I told my BIL a couple weeks ago that this is what I would do if I ran a club. They would pitch one inning every day. No day of rest needed.

By the way Sheik, Id argue against you claiming that there a lot of great power hitters in the minors that cant make it to the majors because of their fielding. If you can consistantly hit 25+ HRs, they WILL find a spot for you.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Lots of minor league guys that can hold their own in the field, but can't handle the next level pitching.

 

[TobiasFunke]

There are 26 guys who hit 25+ HRs in the majors last year. Less than one per team. And a decent number of the guys who did it last year won't crack 20 this year. Victor Martinez, who had 32 last year, currently has two.

 

[Short Corner]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

Funny, I told my BIL a couple weeks ago that this is what I would do if I ran a club. They would pitch one inning every day. No day of rest needed.

By the way Sheik, Id argue against you claiming that there a lot of great power hitters in the minors that cant make it to the majors because of their fielding. If you can consistantly hit 25+ HRs, they WILL find a spot for you.

Are you saying there are no 25+ HR hitters in the minors? Look, I get what you're saying to an extent. And this whole thread was more of a "what if" than a "let's make it happen" topic.

Are you saying a GM knows a guy can hit 25 in the show and is keeping them in AAA because he can't field?

 

[Capella]

If golden state is revolutionizing basketball, then why can't every NFL team get a qb that can throw for 5000 yards while only tossing 9 interceptions?

 

[Beef Ravioli]

95-97 Cleveland Indians had that type of offense and eventually were beat by good pitching.

The Warriors had a "perfect storm" scenario. Had a relatively easy path to the championship with no injuries on their end and facing multiple teams with injuries. Especially the Cavs who were missing a contributing bench player in Varejao and two all stars.

I don't think they are changing the NBA quite yet.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

95-97 Cleveland Indians had that type of offense and eventually were beat by good pitching.

The Warriors had a "perfect storm" scenario. Had a relatively easy path to the championship with no injuries on their end and facing multiple teams with injuries. Especially the Cavs who were missing a contributing bench player in Varejao and two all stars.

I don't think they are changing the NBA quite yet.

Indians could have easily won a WS in 95 or 97.

They outscored FLA 44-37 and lost game 7 in 11 innings. In 95, 5 of the 6 games were one-run games. Just the way it goes some times.

:douchebaghere:

 

[Sinn Fein]

If golden state is revolutionizing basketball, then why can't every NFL team get a qb that can throw for 5000 yards while only tossing 9 interceptions?

Or better yet - use two QBs who throw for 5000 yards at the same time - that is 10000 yards passing. Revolutionary.

 

[cubsmac]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

95-97 Cleveland Indians had that type of offense and eventually were beat by good pitching.

The Warriors had a "perfect storm" scenario. Had a relatively easy path to the championship with no injuries on their end and facing multiple teams with injuries. Especially the Cavs who were missing a contributing bench player in Varejao and two all stars.

I don't think they are changing the NBA quite yet.

Indians could have easily won a WS in 95 or 97.

They outscored FLA 44-37 and lost game 7 in 11 innings. In 95, 5 of the 6 games were one-run games. Just the way it goes some times.

:douchebaghere:

Cleveland really is cursed, isn't it?

 

[TheIronSheik]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Well, I think my first mistake was thinking people could have fun with a lighthearted thread. But apparently everyone is very literal and needs to show off that they can point out mistakes in hypothetical scenarios. That was totally my bad.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Baseball is doing this to an extent with pitching. You shorten a starters innings in a game to like 5....then every inning afterwards, you bring in situational pitchers and pitchers who can hit 95+ on the radar gun. A daring team could carry it to the extreme and look to acquire pitchers capable of hitting 100 and then just having each guy go 1 inning a game.

Funny, I told my BIL a couple weeks ago that this is what I would do if I ran a club. They would pitch one inning every day. No day of rest needed.

During me of his last years managing the A's, LaRussa abandoned a traditional starting pitching rotation. IIRC, he was carrying ten pitchers, had Eckersley as his closer, and put his other nine pitchers into groups of three. One game, the "A" group of three would pitch. The next game, the "B" group would go, then the "C" group. Each pitcher within the group was expected to go three innings, and Eck was available to pitch in any save situation. Not quite as extreme as nine one-inning guys, but not dependent on a single pitcher getting through the order three times to win.

 

[Sinn Fein]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

 

[Gr00vus]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

Doesn't matter if you can hit 25+ homers.

 

[Beef Ravioli]

95-97 Cleveland Indians had that type of offense and eventually were beat by good pitching.

The Warriors had a "perfect storm" scenario. Had a relatively easy path to the championship with no injuries on their end and facing multiple teams with injuries. Especially the Cavs who were missing a contributing bench player in Varejao and two all stars.

I don't think they are changing the NBA quite yet.

Indians could have easily won a WS in 95 or 97.

They outscored FLA 44-37 and lost game 7 in 11 innings. In 95, 5 of the 6 games were one-run games. Just the way it goes some times.

:douchebaghere:

Cleveland really is cursed, isn't it?

 

[Gr00vus]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

Doesn't matter if you can hit 25+ homers a month.

FYP

 

[Guest]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Well, I think my first mistake was thinking people could have fun with a lighthearted thread. But apparently everyone is very literal and needs to show off that they can point out mistakes in hypothetical scenarios. That was totally my bad.

Isn't that what we do here? We can't get through a "last man on earth" thread without getting into things like gas going bad, and grocery item shelf life. I wouldn't take it personally.

 

[Sinn Fein]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

Not really, but the 27 guys who hit 25+ HRs last year have about a .350 OB%, which is pretty good.

 

[Gr00vus]

It'd be great to watch David Ortiz play SS for a full season.

 

[Synthesizer]

If you have power hitters at SS, 2B, 3B, and C, you'd be the team giving up 10 runs a game.

 

[CBusAlex]

There's no rule that says a dog can't play baseball. Why don't teams just load up on dogs? They'd be unstoppable.

 

[TobiasFunke]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Well, I think my first mistake was thinking people could have fun with a lighthearted thread. But apparently everyone is very literal and needs to show off that they can point out mistakes in hypothetical scenarios. That was totally my bad.

Isn't that what we do here? We can't get through a "last man on earth" thread without getting into things like gas going bad, and grocery item shelf life. I wouldn't take it personally.

I think lots of people are having plenty of lighthearted fan talking about how silly this plan is, for many reasons. So ... mission accomplished?

 

[ffldrew]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

Blake Street Bombers

 

[TheIronSheik]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Well, I think my first mistake was thinking people could have fun with a lighthearted thread. But apparently everyone is very literal and needs to show off that they can point out mistakes in hypothetical scenarios. That was totally my bad.

Isn't that what we do here? We can't get through a "last man on earth" thread without getting into things like gas going bad, and grocery item shelf life. I wouldn't take it personally.

I'm not taking it personally, GB. I'm used to the FFA.

 

[cubsmac]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

Not really, but the 27 guys who hit 25+ HRs last year have about a .350 OB%, which is pretty good.

They have a .350 OB% cause they get pitched around quite a bit as they're the only legit power threat on their team. Stack a team with 9 such players, and that's not likely to happen nearly as much, thus putting a serious dent in that ob%.

 

[Peyton Marino]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

Not really, but the 27 guys who hit 25+ HRs last year have about a .350 OB%, which is pretty good.

They have a .350 OB% cause they get pitched around quite a bit as they're the only legit power threat on their team. Stack a team with 9 such players, and that's not likely to happen nearly as much, thus putting a serious dent in that ob%.

wait, you're arguing that the presence of better hitters in a lineup will decrease each player's OBP because they'll get pitched around less? is this earth?

 

[cubsmac]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Hey old man - OB% is what you want to use here, not batting average.

Is a .272 OBP good?

Not really, but the 27 guys who hit 25+ HRs last year have about a .350 OB%, which is pretty good.

They have a .350 OB% cause they get pitched around quite a bit as they're the only legit power threat on their team. Stack a team with 9 such players, and that's not likely to happen nearly as much, thus putting a serious dent in that ob%.

wait, you're arguing that the presence of better hitters in a lineup will decrease each player's OBP because they'll get pitched around less? is this earth?

With power hitters, who usually aren't very good all around bats (which is basically all you could afford if you fielded a complete team of them), yes.

 

[sublimeone]

I wish NBA games were officiated like they were in the 90's. That's not really the point of this thread but it's something that comes to mind whenever I watch the crybaby flopfest that is the current NBA.

 

[Rick James]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

Good pitching beats good hitting.

Yeah that was probably the worst example he could have used.

The Atlanta Braves and Philadelphia Phillies had some of the best rotations around, yet they couldn't win championships.

except for the times both teams won championships

 

[Sinn Fein]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

Good pitching beats good hitting.

Yeah that was probably the worst example he could have used.

The Atlanta Braves and Philadelphia Phillies had some of the best rotations around, yet they couldn't win championships.

except for the times both teams won championships

Sure, but when they did not win championships, they did not win championships.

So there.

 

[Jnox]

I've always thought basketball should be lower scoring. My idea is to change it so that each team has a basket-mover position. The basket would be tied to a rope and the basket-mover would be in charge of yanking the basket up and down kind of like how you work a pinata.

Come on...this is funny!!

 

[Jnox]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

9 guys who hit 25 homers a season equates to 225 homers on the year, or 1.4 homers per game. Since most of your affordable power hitters are Luis Valbuena types, hitting in the low .200's, many of those homers will be solo shots. How do you conclude you'll get 10 runs per game with only 1.4 hr's/gm and nobody getting on base in front of those homers?

Well, I think my first mistake was thinking people could have fun with a lighthearted thread. But apparently everyone is very literal and needs to show off that they can point out mistakes in hypothetical scenarios. That was totally my bad.

How's the weather going?

 

[Spin]

What if a team had nothing but midgets. Their strike zone would be incredibly tiny. Who cares if midgets can play defense, they'd score 10+ runs a game on walks alone.

 

[TheIronSheik]

...can't we do the same in other sports? I think a baseball team could load up on mediocre pitching and fielding while putting out 9 guys who all had the power to go yard on each pitch. 9 guys who all put up 25 HR's a season. Who cares if you give up 5 runs as long as you're scoring 10 a game.

Good pitching beats good hitting.

Yeah that was probably the worst example he could have used.

The Atlanta Braves and Philadelphia Phillies had some of the best rotations around, yet they couldn't win championships.

except for the times both teams won championships

Phillies didn't win the year they had the incredible staff. I believe the Braves only won one year they had their powerhouse rotation.