On one hand, baseball is full of individual matchups. It's the pitcher vs the batter one on one. If the pitcher is on, the rest of the team can take a nap in the field. If the batter hits it over the fence, then no one else on the field really matters. There isn't real team work in the way an offensive line has to all work together to open up a hole for the RB. There is no zone defense, or pick and role. It's a bunch of individuals doing individual things, combining together to form a team.

On the other hand, there is no ability for an individual to completely take over the way LeBron or Steph Curry can in basketball, or to a lesser extent, Tom Brady in the NFL. Even if you have the greatest pitcher ever, who strikes out every batter, that's only one win every five days. If you have Babe Ruth in your lineup, you can just pitch around him and take on the next guy. You can't do this in other sports. You have to actively deny MJ from getting the ball, by playing great D. You can't just say, MJ, sit on the sidelines we'll take on the other four guys. Mike Trout is one of the most feared hitters of his generation, yet he has only made the post season once.

So, even though baseball is about doing individual things, it requires the most complete team to win, because you can just avoid the great individuals.

Anyways, just a random thought.

batter vs. pitcher is the greatest individual battle or matchup in team sports

maybe the best in all sports

I agree with both posters above me. It's a strange dichotomy.
1. The batter vs pitcher is the greatest individual battle in sports
2. But also, one star player cannot elevate the team to success they way they're able to in other team sports.

Johnsy3 said:

---

I agree with both posters above me. It's a strange dichotomy.
1. The batter vs pitcher is the greatest individual battle in sports
2. But also, one star player cannot elevate the team to success they way they're able to in other team sports.

---

For an example of #2, see Barry Bonds in the 2002 World Series. 30 PA, 13 walks (7 intentional), 8 H, 4 HR, but only 6 RBI, and the Giants lost in 7 games (although that was largely due to a bullpen collapse in Game 6.)

The closest I've seen to a single player being responsible for most of his team's success might be Madison Bumgarner in the 2014 World Series. SF only won 1 game in which he didn't appear. 3 G, 21 IP, 1 ER., 2-0 with 1 Save. But as a pitcher, his team still had to score runs.

agsalaska said:

---

The least.

In no other sport can a star player be neutered more by bad teammates than baseball.

---

This is more true in football than baseball.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Johnsy3 said:

---

I agree with both posters above me. It's a strange dichotomy.
1. The batter vs pitcher is the greatest individual battle in sports
2. But also, one star player cannot elevate the team to success they way they're able to in other team sports.

---

For an example of #2, see Barry Bonds in the 2002 World Series. 30 PA, 13 walks (7 intentional), 8 H, 4 HR, but only 6 RBI, and the Giants lost in 7 games (although that was largely due to a bullpen collapse in Game 6.)

The closest I've seen to a single player being responsible for most of his team's success might be Madison Bumgarner in the 2014 World Series. SF only won 1 game in which he didn't appear. 3 G, 21 IP, 1 ER., 2-0 with 1 Save. But as a pitcher, his team still had to score runs.

---

I believe he had the highest Win Probability Added in World Series history. It was only 1.2. The next is Willie Aikens at 1.18. They didn't even win the World Series. Even if you play out of your mind "one star player cannot elevate the team to success they way they're able to in other team sports."

double aught said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

The least.

In no other sport can a star player be neutered more by bad teammates than baseball.

---

This is more true in football than baseball.

---

Man I don't think so. I would put football 2nd ahead of basketball and hockey. I guess any sport with 11 players is going to have less of a one player impact than a sport with 5.

But I can think of teams in football that were otherwise really bad make bowl games or playoffs or just have winning records. Barry Sanders and LaDanian Tomlinson(especially at TCU)come to mind.

I can't think of a baseball team where one star player was so good he by himself carried a team to a playoff.

Think about it like this. I can intentionally walk your best hitter four times and not have to worry about him. But no matter what i still have to defend Barry Sanders with the ball 25 times.

It's close. But I think it's baseball.

It is close. And that's a decent argument.

I'd still say football. Barry Sanders, maybe the greatest RB ever, still needs blockers and defense. Ohtani (hey, if you can use Sanders, I can use Ohtani) can just about win a game on his own.

One thing about hockey is that, while an exceptionally talented, or just incredibly hot, goalie can't win games for his team, he for sure can keep them from losing.

I've seen it more than once where a goalie "standing on his head" has kept his team in playoff series, and even allowed them to win, when the relative talent levels on the ice weren't even close. I think hockey sees more #8 seeds beat #1 seeds in the playoffs than any other sport, largely for this reason.