what would you choose? what wins games great pitching or great hitting?
2007-10-05 07:13:42 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "Good pitching will beat good hitting, and vice versa."
I would go with the pitching first, if for no other reason then there seem to be fewer truly great pitchers out there. However, one of the variables at play here is what truly is "great hitting"? Is it guys hitting .350 with 4 homers for the year, or guys hitting 40 homers with an average of.240? I might be tempted to take a bunch of .350 hitters for the sole reason that good average hitters generally are more consistent the power hitters, who tend to go in streaks.It's also been my experience that hitting slumps almost seem contagious, while it is more unusual for an entire pitching staff to be in a slump at the same time.
I'll take the pitching any day.
2007-10-05 07:46:29 · answer #1 · answered by artistictrophy@sbcglobal.net 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Great pitching.
Great hitting can win you some games, but not as many as great pitching. In the course of a season there are a lot more
2-1 games than 10-9 games.
2007-10-05 07:27:58 · answer #2 · answered by bencas9900 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just look at history. The Rangers were one of the best hitting teams for several years, and never even made the playoffs. The Angels had only pitching last year, and at least got to the post-season. The problem is, without some semblance of both hitting and pitching, you come up short when you get to the big show. Hence, look for Boston and Cleveland in the ALCS this year.
2007-10-05 08:27:41 · answer #3 · answered by kensdog 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great pitching
Good pitching will beat good hitting. As long as your pitching keeps the other teams run score down, then your offense should be able to come up with at least a couple runs to get you the win.
2007-10-05 07:18:07 · answer #4 · answered by Crusader 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's easy. GREAT Pitching every time. You can have an entire team of Babe Ruths, but without great pitching you aren't winning anything. This is the order a teams should be set up to be a winner.
1) Pitching
2) Defense
3) Hitting (Little Ball, not homers)
2007-10-05 09:35:05 · answer #5 · answered by pedrooch 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Excellent question. I'm going to take the opposite stance of the majority and go with good hitting. Good pitching will only get you so far. After all, a game is ultimately won by runs scored, not strikeouts (although good pitching keeps you in the game). Ideally, you need both; but I'm going with hot sticks over hot arms.
2007-10-05 07:28:20 · answer #6 · answered by JC 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
pitching...without a doubt
look what becket just did to the angels, or what felix hernandez did to the red sox in his 2nd start of the year....1 hit, complete game shutout
the two most important parts of a winning baseball team are pitching and defence
2007-10-05 07:34:18 · answer #7 · answered by mikemusic19 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great pitiching will stop good hitting.....great pitching wins the games aslong as the starter's pitch count is low, middle relief is soild, and a GREAT SET UP and CLOSER!!!!
2007-10-05 07:27:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would choose great pitching. Keeping the other team from scoring is better overrall.
2007-10-05 08:28:40 · answer #9 · answered by Giliathriel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good pitching stops good hitting. Good hitters take advantage of mistakes by pitchers who aren't so good.
It's harder to sign and develop pitching. But if you come up with a surplus, it can be traded for good hitting.
2007-10-05 07:21:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋