I actually think that baseball is the one sport where you really Can't build a team around one player. Baseball requires at least half of the starters to be above average productive at the plate in order to go somewhere, but at the same time it needs a solid 1-3 or 1-4 pitching staff. A superstar pitcher surrounded by guys that wouldn't even start on a better team is no good. Just like a superstar power hitter is nothing without a strong supporting cast hitting around him, or else the pitcher can just walk him every at bat to avoid a home run.
I think sports like football, where the quarterback is the true leader and probably most important guy on the team, is the ideal sport to build a franchise around. Baseball really requires several good players on a team to win. In football a good team can't really hide a bad quarterback, but a good quarterback and carry a lousy team fairly far (basically what peyton manning did for most of his career).
Well, to be fair, the Colts have hardly been lousy since 1999. I think John Elway is the better example.
But otherwise, I fully agree.
I would say that more 'lousy' (or only slightly above average) baseball teams have made or won the World Series as opposed to NFL teams.
Of the last 20 years the Twins, Reds, Marlins, Angels, White Sox, and Cardinals come to mind.
I meant the colts in terms of how terrible their defense traditionally is. Plus last year most people seem to feel that if not for Peyton Manning the colts would've barely been an above .500 team, hence the fact he won mvp yet again.
In baseball, yea, a lousy team can win, but they usually have outstanding pitching. Cardinals had a lousy record when the won in a few years ago, but they had great pitching that carried them through the playoffs. I don't think in baseball where one player can't really rally an entire team, that a franchise can be specifically catered around one particular players. Especially a pitcher where they only come onto the field once every 4/5 games. Even a great position player can't do anything without a few good players hitting around him. Hence the Royals, or the Orioles, who can have one superstar player, but it means absolutely nothing if the other players suck.
I think sports that tend to be capable of having a team build around a player would be basketball where you have a star like a Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, ect....and he makes the team so much better that you find players that can accomodate him. Again, in football with like a John Elway, you find player that are decent enough to play around him and he can carry you fairly far. Even hockey, you get a stud goal scorer and then find players to protect him and let him get his shots off. Baseball takes so much individual effort by each player that when there are too many holes in the line-up it makes it difficult to win games consistantly.
Thanks for leaving out the Pirates! Although, I'm not sure we have one superstar player... (yet... Cutch is great) 😀
Yup. Most of the teams I listed just had great October/Novembers. When you look at the rosters, no one player stands out that season as MVP caliber (other than perhaps Pujols for the Cards). Even teams like the 2001 M's or 1998-99 Yankees just put together great team efforts to reach insanely high levels of play.
I think baseball is more dependent on 'chemistry' more than any other sport (with basketball 2nd). The sport demands not only individual achievement by batters AND pitchers, but good coaching and timely plays in crucial positions in which one point (run) makes all the difference.
That's why I listed C, SS, 2B, CF and SP as my 'franchise player(s)'. Because pitching and defense (up the middle) seems to be key toward success.
Players like Griffey, Big Hurt and ARod never won titles on their own. Most never even win with alot of help.
