Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth
What's hilarious is they can sign these bigger name guys to $100+ million contracts, but continue to have a pitiful bullpen, weak rotational pitching in their back end, and mediocre defense. Now, they’re not Cleveland level defense bad, but they seem to be of the mindset of stacking their order, having 2 ace pitchers, and band aid the rest.
Baseball is such a streaky game, it's my opinion that a team of high quality guys is going to payoff as opposed to having 3 or 4 megastars. Over 162 games it's not feasible to have to rely on a few guys to carry you day in and day out.
The Royals have a lot of good "solid" players and often times a different guy did step up and help the team when another guy or guys had an off night.
All the talk about the Mets having 4 ace quality starters couldn't match a Royals team that had no real weakness. Our D, and bullpen were outstanding, but overall everything the team did in every aspect of the game was mostly average to good, but more importantly there was no weak link in the chain.
|
Eh, it works both ways.
The Marlins that knocked off the Yankees several years ago were the best example I can recall of a team that was sound but not spectacular across the board. The Red Sox teams in the mid 2000s, OTOH, had holes everywhere and a spotty bullpen but won with a killer middle of the order and a couple of aces.
Both approaches works so you have to build around what you have. The Tigers have too many holes to just fill them all with sound guys so they're trying to build around a couple of stars.
It might work. It probably won't. But you can say that about every team and every approach - nobody's a better bet than the field in baseball.