DH against RHP...

[ArtemusRex]

I was actually going to DH platoon Ryan Howard against RHP but chickened out. Decided RFK, even with a medium porch favorable to lefties wasnt worth the investment. Maybe another team another time. I do know Endy Chavez is a cheap outfield platoon against LHP. I had him at a .275 BA on that assignment and CF backup with about 250-300 AB.

[bomp helium]

hello palmtana:

that's very interesting that Catalanotto had a better OBP vs. LHP in real life but his card clearly has more OB chances vs. RHP. I have no idea why that might be the case.

when I'm undecided I count the cards. lately I've been using the following system:

HR=4; 3B=3; 2B=2; single=1; BB=1; HBP=1; clutch hit=1/2.

I guess you could call this Total Bases.

these are weighted to account for split (1-20), and for location on the card (7=6; 6,8=5; 5,9=4; 4,10=3; 3,11=2; 1-12=1). (These are of course the "odds" that any dice throw will occur.)

under this formula, Catalanotto rates 55 vs. RHP and 49 vs. LHP, which isn't Edmunds buts it's not bad either, especially for two bucks and change.

Garabito, to user another example, rates at 39 vs. LHP and 56 vs. RHP...

so garabito's slightly more valuable vs. RHP, but catalanotto takes the edge with his outstanding clutch...and he's better against LHP, which is helpful in the event of an injury...I like to keep a small roster of reasonably versatile players...

other examples that I happened to calculate would be Zaun (59 vs. LHP, 43 vs. RHP) and navarro (44 vs. LHP, 44 vs. RHP)...

that's why I went with Zaun at c (although the 2 previous times I've had him he's been disappointing)...

so that's my counting system...it's pretty easy once you do it a few times, takes me about a minute per side to calculate...

I do believe the numbers are weighted by SOM for ballpark and other factors, so you can't completely trust the raw numbers (BA,SLG,OBP)...I think it' simportant to check the cards as well...

[tersignf]

The cards are the only thing that matters. They are the statistic that will play out over the season, designed and calculated of course to replicate the player's stats given the same conditions of the regular season in a replay, which we NEVER have in a 12 team SOMO league.

Completely depends on your park and situation. Cat is nice because at least he's N-power vs lefties, so is valuable vs reverse LHPs. But to count a 1/2 OB for each clutch chance would seem to be far too high. There are other threads on this. But his card shows his LHP exposure from the 2005 season as 7% with those 30 ABs, which are not statistically significant, so facing 30% lefties for Catallanotto would result in a lower OBA over the course of a season.

Again, though, in Petco clutch is more important than Coors simply because you've got less opportunities to score and get on base comparatively.

As valuable as OBs are, certainly don't want Giambis (nor Zauns) on a Petco team, IMHO. Far too few productive hits.

[bomp helium]

hey tersignf:

I've been wondering about how to value the clutch hits (and of course the non-clutch)...I'm glad you mentioned it...

I've been counting non-clutch at 100%, and clutch at 50% (i.e., a non-clutch 1-8 single would be valued at 5; a clutch 1-8 out/single would valued at 2.5)...

what do you vets use to value clutch and non-clutch?

can you direct me to the thread you referred too?

intrigued,
helium

[tersignf]

This should be a good one, started by DeanTSC:
[url]http://forums-beta.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=69393[/url]

and here's a search on the strategy forum:
[url]http://forums-beta.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1061140&highlight=clutch[/url]


Your calc above would too many OBs due to clutch.
Clutch situations arise for a player maybe 10% of their PAs, and then factoring in pitcher or hitter card, then the dice roll...well you can see how you're giving a 50% weight to a successful clutch situation if I read it right. Too high. Just think of what it would do to the BA and OBA of those players.

So what about neg clutch--do you do the same subtraction? That would be far too much.

Cheers--
Frank