Quote Originally Posted by Coach34 View Post
Yes- UCLA 2013. Team BA of .250. Averaged 4.72 runs per game. Beat a team called Miss State for the title

But their team ERA of 2.55 carried them to a title
Did UCLA win it all without scoring any runs? Amazing!

You're defining every score by the pitching. Say there was a 1-0 game. You'd say "wow what great pitching, but the winning team was just a little more consistent on the mound". Say we had a 3-2 game, you'd say "the team that scored 2 runs didn't pitch as good as the winning team". Say there was a 8-7 game. You'd say "the team that scored 7 really crapped the bed on the mound" . Under no circumstances would you credit the offense of the winning team for getting the runs, just blame/credit the pitchers. Of course by that framework pitching is all that matters.

Like you look at UCLA and say "they were a bad offensive team that had a low ERA, so they won it all because of pitching. OK, so lets look at LSU: Best offense in the SEC, 6th in ERA. So they won it all behind their offense, right? I mean that's the logic you just used for UCLA. Oh no, you don't admit LSU won because of their offense? You say "LSU had some arms step up in the postseason, that's why they won". And yeah, that's true! Every team that wins it all has some dues step up, or they would have gotten beat. But guess what? UCLA had some bats step up and score runs on serious pitching, but you don't extend the same credit to them. They shelled Ross Mitchell and Holder when nobody else did, for example, yet you act like their pitchers were all that suited up

And for the record, we lost of UCLA 3-1 in game 1. 2 of UCLA's runs were unearned because of an error. Defense matters