Originally posted by whodey
The reason that pitching is often emphasized more than batting is, statistical consistancy. What is more likely? Is it more likely that the entire team will consistanty hit well or is it more likely that a hand full of pitchers will pitch well?
They're equally likely. To have a good offensive series, you need maybe 5 or 6 hitters to hit well. To pitch well, you need 5 or 6 pitchers to pitch well.
In Scorecasting, they did a historical study of these things and determined that in a series that pits the better hitting team against the better pitching team, and accounting for the relative disparities, (surprise!) the better hitting team is appropriately 50% likely to win and the better pitching team has approximately a 50% chance of winning.
The tired cliches like "pitching is 80% of the game" "pitching and defense wins championships" etc. etc. are all baloney. In all sports, people love to extol how important defense is, but the data shows that defense and offense are almost universally of equal importance. This, of course, makes sense, as they're opposite sides of the same coin. My good pitching means your bad offense and vice versa.
Why do people love to do this? Maybe because good defense is less obvious than good offense and so coaches like to overcompensate. Maybe good defense takes more subtle effort and so is viewed by people are morally superior. I don't know. I'm not a psychoanalyst.
Michael Jordan, who was both a great offensive and great defensive player, but who loved to talk about defense, once had this to say regarding another of those cliches:
One game, he hit the last 7 shots and the team won the game. One of the coaches tsked at his performance and said "Michael, there's no "I" in team." Jordan replied 'No, but there's an "i" in "win." So, which way do you want it?