Sandy Alderson designed his rebuild around power starting arms, Theo Epstein around high-end hitting.

Both got it right. Both are in the NLCS. Now we have this fascinating matchup of the best group of young starting pitchers in the game vs. the best group of young position players.

Over the next four to seven games, we will see which way was better to go for 2015. But in an attempt to look at a bigger picture, I received 14 responses to this question:

Which group would you rather build a team around for the next five years, the Mets’ five young starters (Jacob deGrom, Matt Harvey, Steven Matz, Noah Syndergaard and Zack Wheeler) or the Cubs’ main five young hitters (Kris Bryant, Anthony Rizzo, Addison Russell, Kyle Schwarber and Jorge Soler)?

The final total came in nine in favor of the Cubs and five in favor of the Mets. I offered anonymity because those responding did not want to talk about players on other teams. Wheeler was included, though he missed all of this season, because he is expected back next year. Russell was included, though he is missing the NLCS with a hamstring injury and other Cubs young position players such as Starlin Castro or Javier Baez could have been used instead. But I went with the five whom Chicago seems to be building around.

In general, those who favored the Cubs did so because the impact of injury and diminished performance was not as great with hitters as pitchers. Also, many spoke about how rare it is for great pitching units like the Braves’ big three (Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and John Smoltz) to stay healthy for a long time together, citing this year’s Nationals and the Phillies of a few years back (Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, Roy Oswalt) as teams that thought they were assembling long-term rotation greatness that were short-circuited. Of the Mets’ quintet, only Syndergaard has yet to have Tommy John surgery.

Conversely, those who favored the Mets would cite the extended greatness of the Braves or the run by the A’s (Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito) or that having great pitching meant only a league-average offense or defense was necessary.

I figured, though, this article would be best served if I just let the 14 people explain themselves. First, those who favored the Mets followed by those who picked the Cubs:

Pro-Mets

An NL scout: “Pitching and defense wins championships. Those five are all impact No. 1 or 2 starters. The five Cubs guys are very good young offensive players, probably above-average everyday guys, but have some defensive issues at this point. If healthy, the Mets can go on a run like Atlanta. The five hitters in Chicago, I do believe, have some holes, and the league will adjust to them and we will then see if the kids can adjust.”

An AL scout: “With power and offense being as valuable as it is, it makes this a tough call for a lot of people. For me as an executive it is an easy answer, I strongly believe that winning is built around one thing: Pitching. Sure you have to have a decent defense and at least some type of offense. But those things are mostly useless without good pitching.

“I believe the Mets will be very competitive for a long period of time with these arms. It’s not only quality, but it’s premium stuff, with relative youth.

“Even with an injury or two, I would much rather have the pitching and quantity of it. There is a great chance here for a dominant ceiling of a Smoltz/Maddux/Glavine threesome, or a Zito/Hudson/Mulder combo that gets you there every year for a good span (4-6 years).”

An NL president of baseball operations: “Wow! Both clubs have core/franchise players in this group. I absolutely love each player presented, and there is not one guy here that I would not take on my club. At the end of the day, I would go Mets pitching by a nose. Each of those guys are front-of-the-rotation young, affordable, controllable guys. Deep power pitching can overcome deficiencies easier than big offense.”

An AL president of baseball operations: “Normally, I would take the position players, but that pitching group is so special that you are in every game regardless of who is playing behind them; whereas the position player group has to have at least an average pitcher on the mound.”

An AL scout: “I probably would lean toward the starting pitching right now and hope to get enough offense. The Mets dealt with so many injuries and bad performances by their hitters until they made their trades in July, but stayed in it because of that pitching. I would take one impact bat over one impact pitcher. But five impact pitchers? Sign me up for that.”

Pro-Cubs

An AL GM: “I’m going with the position players because of the volatility of starting pitching with health, performance, etc. It changes so much from year to year. Other than the Braves and A’s with their staffs, no pitching staffs have had extended runs over the past few years.”

An AL GM: “I would take the Cubs’ position players just due to the inherent risk in starting pitching health.”

An AL president of baseball operations: “With respect to your question, that’s like asking if I prefer chocolate chip cookies or French fries. Either would make me very happy. I’d lean towards the Cubs group, primarily because it’s become increasingly difficult to acquire elite offensive players and it usually takes a significant investment to get them (high first-round pick, impact trade, etc.). While many elite pitchers are also acquired through similar means, there are more examples of pitchers developing into elite performers from alternate means than position players.”

An NL GM: “I would go with the Cubs because of the volatility of pitchers and the fact that hitters play everyday, and it’s become increasingly more difficult to find hitters. It isn’t all that close for me.”

An AL GM: “I would take the position players — their profiles usually don’t fluctuate as much as pitchers due to injury issues or reduction of stuff and command.”

An AL player personnel head: “That’s a tough question. I wish we were in that position. I would go with the position players for the simple fact of durability. If Kris Bryant blows out a knee next year, he’ll be the same player a year later. The same cannot be said for pitcher injuries.”

An NL assistant GM: “I would take the hitters. I know you are only as good as your starting pitcher that night, but finding quality position players with power is tough. I would start with the five hitters and add pitching via other avenues. Also, pitching is fragile — I’m more certain that the hitters will be productive for me the next five years. Also, evaluating hitters as amateurs is so much harder than evaluating pitchers.”

An AL assistant GM: “I would take the Cubs. It is harder to accumulate and acquire plus position players, and there is a better chance of them staying healthy and sustaining their performance.”

An AL scout: “I would take the position guys. They would always say take pitching, but in this case I would have some worries about Harvey’s makeup and Matz holding up. I just have more comfort with the Cub hitters holding up for the long haul. I think the Met pitchers are fantastic, but you can find a lot of examples of even fantastic groups of pitchers falling apart.”