Has anyone approached a team by getting a pitcher-centric ballpark, and prioritized pitching and fielding at the expense (but not out-and-out neglect) of hitting?

It seems as though a lot of players overvalue hitting (which is also gonna happen quite a bit in NL-Only fantasy leagues this year).

They also seem to overvalue strikeouts as well. Seems as though targeting pitchers with high control, high GB/FB, and at least 2 very good pitches, and having a good defense behind them - all while playing in a tough hitters park - would keep scores down. Closer the score, better the chance a clutch hit can win it correct?

I'm sure this isn't the reality, but has anyone considered this approach before?

That pretty much describes my team right now.  I didn't set out to build it that way, but the team I inherited (one stud, three real prospects), decisions I made (not tanking) and the makeup of the world I play in (other owners' valuation of players) eventually led me down that path.

One thing to point out is that I built the team without the ballpark.  I was simply trying to build the best team I could.  I moved to a pitcher's park (Portland) after failing spectacularly in a hitter's park (Wrigley).  What's important to note now is that my pitching and defensive numbers are consistently high ranking both at home and on the road.

But it's a stylistic choice.  If you're happy winning a game 3-1, you also have to accept that you're more likely than other teams to lose a game 2-0.

 

Impressive. Your team? That was pretty much what I was thinking. I'll need a few seasons to do it though.

Personally, when I have a pitchers' park, I tend to think that I can use that to cover flaws in my pitchers, rather than exaggerate strengths. For example, if there's a borderline free agent pitcher available for a lowish price, I'm more likely to sign him if I have a pitching park than if I have a hitting park, because in the hitters park he's more likely to get knocked around.

One thing I do tend to emphasize with my pitchers park teams (I have one in Sacramento, one in Seattle, and one I'm Honolulu) is batters eye. Ballparks can make it tougher to get hits, so you need to find another way to get on base, and for me that is walks. For the same reason, it seems like a good idea to emphasize control for pitchers.

Exactly my take. Baserunning/speed is something I would key on too, to stretch walks/singles into RISP. In general though, I think it's important to have a strong hitting team in a pitcher's park. I went with this theory as best as I could in the draft tournament world, using Tacoma.

Funny thing is... and this reflects what arctic said a little... once I became confident my pitching was in good shape (the only thing I could do to improve things would be to trade for a true stud SP1, and that's too costly)... It freed me up to begin trading for better hitters, right when other owners felt like moving some veterans.

I start with fielding.   Fielding will keep you in games and it also allows you some leeway with DUR/STM in pitchers because you're turning hits into outs.  And, because owners do get too caught up in hitting, you can get good fielders with decent bats pretty cheap. 

Agreed 100%. My SS is a gold glover I found on the WW when he was in LoA. Sure, it was a mistake by the guy who drafted him, but it was because he couldn't hit. Still can't, I suspect 90% of HBD players would only use him as a backup.

To kind of give you more insight here on what I am thinking - I don't have more than one stud hitter, so going with the cheaper pitching/fielding dynamic allows me to be competitive while i work on getting some hitting prospects developed. Check out damag's team. That's exactly what it appears he did.

Think of the NHL in the 90s with expansion. Expansion teams didn't have access to the scorers. But they could get decent veteran goalies, good checking forwards, and a lot of good, veteran shot blocking defensemen. That kept scores close, and many of those expansion teams were able to work their way into the playoffs.

So that is my theory. Stay competitive with undervalued assets like defensive players, pitching, and even coaches, while I get my target budget items up to where they need to be. And of course acquiring prospects for the future.

Remember one size does not fit all. You're basing this approach on, according to your original post, the observation that owners value offensive players above all else. That's what I found in my world too. It would be different in a world where the offense was more muted, and maybe the thing in short supply were great pitching.

It's an exaggeration to suggest I built my team this way on purpose. I would love to have a pile of all star sluggers like other guys do, but I had to accept that without top five draft picks, amazingly deep drafts, or 30 million Dollar IFAs, I'm never going to have players like that. I had to accept that my team couldn't hit well, even in Wrigley. So all I have tried to do is make the best of the players I can realistically obtain at what price I consider fair.

Understood. You have to be adaptable.

I actually had a really good team that won a WS and LCS.  Then I decided I needed to rebuild.  While rebuilding, I did what you are talking about and concentrated defense and speed - at the time with the idea that it would keep me at least marginally competitive while I balanced out expiring contracts and/or let free agents walk.  I ended up hardly missing a beat, averaging 96+ wins/season for around 11 seasons with the rebuilding seasons right in the middle of it.  It taught me the value of defense.  Somehow, pitchers who were always "mediocre" for other teams were lights out when the pitched for me.  Of course it always helps to have a 10:1 or better + play to - play ratio.

This team was built around D:

Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	6	$36.0M	75-87 (.463)	4	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	7	$81.0M	89-73 (.549)	3	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	8	$78.9M	91-71 (.562)	2	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	9	$100.4M	101-61 (.623)	2	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	10	$112.7M	109-53 (.673)	1	X
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	11	$111.3M	107-55 (.660)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	12	$123.0M	101-61 (.623)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	13	$127.5M	113-49 (.698)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	14	$118.8M	112-50 (.691)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	15	$125.8M	90-72 (.556)	2	-
Totals/Averages	KC Swing Kings	-	$101.5M	988-632 (.610)	1	1

It was possibly the least talented team I've ever taken over.   But, instead of doing harm, the previous owner did pretty much nothing so my starting payroll was 10m.   There wasn't much on the FA market that first season but I had the #1 WW position.   So I claimed the good defensive players with average to poor bats.   We were able to be not horrible while rebuilding the team.

Mike and I battled head to head in the same division over this time.  Same world that I was talking about.  While he was in the division, we won 3 WS between us.  Both of us basically with the same model (with respect to defense).

A thread about the value of defense:   http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=431983&Page=5

Page 5 shows the stats of a group of pitchers with no rating changes and varying defensive support.