Add new comment

This is from memory ... what I was attempting to look at was how "balanced" an offense needed to be -- (sort of a "how scrubby can stars & scrubs get?" study). 
So, my memory might not be perfect.  I know I picked years in the FA era ... and "probably" in the steroid era.  But, I think it would be dubious at best to discount a study which basically concluded "The 200 OPS+ guy cannot make up for a multitude of 60 OPS+ guys."  If that doesn't happen in the steroid era ... hardly reason to think it would be more unbalanced before steroids.
But, I was looking at OPS+ specifically because I wanted to mitigate era impact.  REGARDLESS of era, an 80 OPS+ is "supposed to be" comparable over eras.
Of course, the most telling thing in all of the attempts to counter my assertion is that ZERO of the examples were AL teams. 
Mostly what I was trying to do was figure out if having a 150 or 160 OPS+ superstar actually made a difference.  It didn't.  The math is pretty straight forward.  You take your best and worst hitters and they average together at "roughly" 50/50.  The only mitigating factor is PAs.  You take a 140 OPS+ guy with 600 PAs and put him on a team with a 60 OPS+ guy getting 600 PAs ... and the aggregate result actually seems to be WORSE than having two guys at 100.  The "unbalanced" lineup has a weakness of allowing the freedom to "walk" around the big bat.
THIS team has exactly one big bat at the moment.  How does the club score runs in a meaningful game when Smoak gets the Bonds treatment?  ICHIRO is currently #2 in RBI for the team. 
And the scrubs on this team aren't even the 70-75 OPS+ guys from the Astros NL team.  There are FIVE (5) regulars currently under 70 (not 80) ... and a pair currently under 60.  Hey, I'll concede that Kennedy, LROD and Langerhans add a trio of 'bench' bats that are palatable.  And I'd say they ARE what has allowed the offense to 'appear' salvageable so far. 
My own view - (and I think MANY would agree) - is that Ryan has basically zero chance of being any better than Cedeno.  He's gonna put up a 60 (ish) OPS+ until he leaves town.  Olivo?  Anyone placing their chips on Olivo to climb to an 85 OPS+?  Figgins?  After last season and this April, who is pegging Figgins to produce a 90 OPS+?  Saunders anyone? 
Right now the "best" hopes for the Ms to go from 6 black holes to 3 would require Bradley and Cust to rebound ... for LROD to take over at short ... and for Ackley to come up and produce a .750 OPS from day one.  But, Olivo and Figgins aren't going anywhere.  That's pretty much a guarantee of two black holes for the rest of the season.  So, we're supposed to bet on 100% success rate at EVERY other position?
Mind you ... if by July the club has somehow managed to prouce a half dozen guys putting up an 80 or above OPS+ as starters, I'd be more than happy to revisit the discussion.  But, "right now", this club isn't remotely close to having enough talent to warrant any kind of "short term" move for a 2011 payoff. 
The reality here is that - the club has had an unimaginable pitching streak - (a dozen Halladay's as Doc put it).  THAT cannot continue.  But, consider that after 10 days of a dozen Halladay's, the club ERA+ is *STILL* not at 100.
The model being discussed is a 120 ERA+.  The problem here is while saying "the dozen Halladay's can't continue" - the argument that the team is competitive ignores the 23 points of ERA+ the club still has to reel in. 
Wedge has been a master - but look at the current top 4 bullpen guys -- ZERO HRs combined.  A total of 39 hits in 61 innings.  But a combined total of only 38 Ks.  There isn't a SINGLE one of the bullpen guys with a K rate above 7.  ZERO.  Our bullpen of League, Pauley, Laffey and Wright has been better than Pineda!  That is not meant as a compliment - but as a warning of what *IS* coming. 
I said weeks ago this team if built for streaks.  I stand by that point.  They're riding high at the moment - but somepoint (probably very soon) - another slide is going to come - and it's gonna be painful to endure.