The Instigator
DragonX
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Good pitching is better than Good hitting

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,594 times Debate No: 22695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

DragonX

Pro

i'll take anybody on
Zaradi

Con

Come at me bro.
Debate Round No. 1
DragonX

Pro

Ok here I go Alex Rodriguez when he was with the Texas Rangers had 1 of if not the best season of his carrer but in that year 2002 the Rangers bullpen was terrible & they were actually in last place. In that same year the Yankees had 1 of the strongest starting rotation in that season despite getting eliminated in the 1st round of the postseason. They really had 5 aces that season. 2001 World Series randy Johnson pithced like he was in a league of his own he kept the Yankees from scoring & only gave up 2 runs in that whole World Series. Him & Curt Schilling were so dominate that they shared the World Series M.V.P Trophy. The Toronto Blue Jays have had some off the best offense in years but have hardly ever made the playoffs because of their lack of pitching.
Zaradi

Con

Okay, I'd like to point out that my opponent is looking at this debate from the wrong angle. Sure, while his points he brings up carry some validity to them, it's not going to be beneficial to either of us if all we do is spout out random baseball statistics like we're Babe Ruth with ADHD. There's always going to be instances in baseball history where the pitching was the defining moment in a game, or where the hitting was the defining moment in the game. To really understand which is better, we need to look at things from a theoretical level. This is where my arguments are going to be far better and far more important than my opponent's.

Also, in order to achieve fairness in debating it, we must assume that the team in question were to focus on solely pitching or solely on hitting, as arguing for the possession of both is highly unfair, as it skews ground in favor of one person over the other.

On a theoretical level, good hitting is far superior a thing to have than good pitching. It's as simple as this: in order to win the game, you need more runs than your opponent. In order to get runs, you have to hit the ball well enough to get people around all four bases. If you have excellent pitching but poor hitting, sure your games will be low scoring, but you're going to lose the majority of them because your ability to score will be vastly reduced. Pitchers tire, throwing 80-100+ balls as hard and as accurately as you can is tiring. The more you tire, the more prone to mistakes you are, mistakes that could cost your team runs or the game. Hitters, however, tire much slower than pitchers do. On a rough average, a batter would only, realistically, have to swing a bat three or four times an at bat, and only have a few at-bats in a 9 inning game. This means that they will tire far less quickly, if at all, where as pitchers are going to eventually tire to the point that they will make a mistake, and a hitter will capitalize on that mistake. Replacing pitchers will only get you so far, but then that pitcher will eventually tire as well, and then you'll have to replace him, and then the next pitcher will eventually tire, and you'll have to replace him. Even in a 9 inning game, you could realistically go through four or five pitchers. That's plenty of tired balls being thrown for hitters to get good contact on and really drive deep for extra bases or a homerun.

So, if a hypothetical team had to choose a pure hitting team or a pure pitching team, the hitting team would be a far better choice, because it would lead to them being able to score more points, and thus win more games.
Debate Round No. 2
DragonX

Pro

What my opponent failed to realize is that teams also like the Mets & O's have had great offense. The O's have Vladimar Guerruo & Adam Reynolds They did well hitting wise but fail to make the playoffs consitantly. Also the Mets have Carlos Delgado Carlos Beltran, David wright & Jose Reyes each of them with they're respective careers have hit very well but have only made the playoffs once since 00 & that was 06. The Chicago White Sox in 05 did not have a great offense in fact most of their offense were mediocore but their pitching was great that they ended up winning the World Series that year. The Yankees( my team) in 05 almost missed the playoffs because of lack of pitching but were able to make because of 2 pitchers named Aaron small & Shawn Chacon. Irvin Santana shut down the Yankees in Game 5 for the Angels to win that game which tell you something. 06 the Detroit tigers starting rotation was great in 06 against the Yankees & went to go the World Series (despite not winning it) they also were able to beat us when we had runners in scoring position & were able to win game 5. Mariano Rivera has 1 of the greatest eras in baseball & has shut down several of other teams & is the league leader in all time saves & when throughout that whole time the Yankees have made the playoffs 16/17 times during that stretch. So that has to tell you something. Pitching wins games. Rivera was 1 of if not the biggest reason why the Yankees were successful. Also the Yankees in 03 our Bullpen was so good that we actually made the World Series ( despite losing the W.S). Also our starting rotation was great that year also. We didn't have big Home run hitters that year either & neither did our opponents the Flordia Marlins but they were able to win the World Series because of guys like Josh Beckett. The statistics are right there you guys can search it up if you want to.
Zaradi

Con

See? Babe Ruth with ADHD. Just flinging stats out everywhere.

My opponent drops the argument that we need to be basing this debate off of a hypothetical situation, and not in the real world. While there are instances of pitching being everything for a game, there are also instances of hitting being everything in a game. These two cancel each other out, and we get no where. Thus, we have to base this debate in the hypothetical. My opponent never does that. This can, and should, be a reason to vote con.

Moreover, he drops the entirety of my case, proving why hitting is hypothetically, as the debate demands to be able to be determined at all, hitting is much more important to have than pitching. Because I'm doing this, it's an easy vote for the con.

As I'm a little confused as to what to post here, as none of my arguments were answered, his case doesn't really prove anything in the way that the resolution demands, and I can't make any new arguments this round, I will go ahead and wrap up here and give voters for why I'm winning.

1. His case does not apply to the hypothetical, as the resolution demands. Thus, the entirety of his arguments don't apply to the debate.
2. I'm the only person actually talking about the hypothetical, meaning my case is the only one left inherently standing at the end of the day. This is a reason to negate.
3. He really made no attempt to argue against hte points I brought up in my case, effectively dropping the entire thing. Because my case went entirely dropped, you can negate here.

This might've been one of my shortest final rounds that I actually argued.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Awesome.

If you wanna try this debate again, I'll take it again.
Posted by DragonX 5 years ago
DragonX
yeah
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Apparently I'm not the only one who saw my argument that we need to prefer hypothetical over real world, so I'll keep trying to explain this to you.

Your entire argument rested on real world examples. Both rounds were just straight up statistics (without a source, but that's besides the point). One of my arguments was that there are instances in history where batting was the key factor and where pitching was a key factor. Arguing for one side or the other would get us nowhere, as both things have happened. That meant in order for the debate to be resolvable, we have to base our arguments off of hypothetical reason. This takes out the entire basis of your arguments, as they were all based in the real world and not in the hypothetical. You didn't provide a hypothetical response to anything I said. Hence, you conceded everything I said.

Does this make sense?
Posted by DragonX 5 years ago
DragonX
Dude I mentioned bullpen in 2003. I actually did refute it. If you were paying attention of when I was saying on how well the Mets batting was then you would've known that I was stating that they're pitching
was terrible hence forth was the proof of why they didn't make the playoffs. I also stated on the Chicago White Sox in 2005 when They won the World Series in 88 years that their was great even though their batters were not very good the only good batter they actually had was Paul Konerko that's it. A.J Piersynski & Jermaine dye were just mediocore hitters & they batted like 4 & 5 in the lineup. You only based it on logic terms but I based it on events that happened in history,
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
I was mislead. This debate has nothing to do with gay sex.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
That relies on real world examples applying to the debate, which I argued they shouldn't. You never responded to that, making pretty much all of your arguments not apply. Hence, you never refuted it.
Posted by DragonX 5 years ago
DragonX
I did address the bullpen. I said in 03 the Yankees bullpen was so good that they made the world series that year despite losing so yes I did address that.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
"but didn't make a good example of on actual events..."

I actually made the argument why we should be considering hypothetical examples, instead of real world examples. You didn't adress it.

"that's why there's a bullpen"

Actually adressed this too. You didn't adress this either.
Posted by DragonX 5 years ago
DragonX
but didn't make a good example of on actual events of why good hitting was better I did. I stated many scenarios why on how good pitching was better based on the events of what actually happened not just logic terms. Of course pitchers get tired that's why there's a bullpen for a reason when the bullpen does well it keeps the opposing team from scoring. If they can do that then a team can win by 1 run. runs of course are important but a team can score a run off an error by either the outfielder or infielder. If the pitcher does their job on most records the fielders would have easier plays to do so.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
And I specifically stated that there are stats for both happening. Both stats cancel out and we're left with an undeterminable debate. Thus, we have to take the question posed by the resolution to the hypothetical.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
DragonXZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: If you can't score, you can't win.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
DragonXZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Zaradi basically called the spamming statistics thing as unreasonable and worth little, but Dragon just ignored this objection, and argued as if it didn't exist. Zaradi gave a good reason for his case, and reason why DragonX's presentation of the facts was flawed. Zaradi, therefore, gets the argument points.