Friday, June 17, 2005

Is Winning Boring?

Amidst the 'Moneyball' teams, Boston, Toronto (Ricciardi), Los Angeles (DePodesta), and Oakland (Beane) we note variable success. The Sox (and a lot of cash) validated the concept last season, Toronto is good for their payroll, the Dodgers are competitive, and Beane, er, pulls up the rear.

BUT, I ask are the Sox as 'interesting' taking a lot of pitches, getting on base via the walk, wearing out the starter, and hoping for the three-run homer? Winning is everything, and I wouldn't trade the World Series title for 240 homers and losing, but I hope that the Sox are developing more complete players in the minors.

Last night Ted Sarandis expressed great reservation about the talents of Millar and Bellhorn, to name two starters. They aren't great players, and you don't buy great talent for 'shoestring' salaries (wouldn't I like to live on theirs, each over ten times mine). They do what they do. They play adequate defense, get on base, and contribute. You want fifteen all-stars on your team? Root for the Yankees.

Wouldn't it be terrific to see homegrown Ichiros and Beltrans, some guys who can run and make spectacular defensive plays? Yes, what have Ichiro and Beltran ever won, but here's hoping that Hanley, Pedroia, Moss, and the stud pitchers can bring not only winning but a bit more athleticism and excitement to the lineup.

1 comment:

Figdrewton said...

The Patriots are a perfect example of a winning team that can be not very interesting to watch. Fundamentals and teamwork win championships but don't make highlight reels.