Annual attempt

[padrenurgle1]

Extreme approaches have exponential risks. You're talking about a team that has such poor range that it's several standard deviations below the mean distribution. Carrying even one "4" in the middle infield has a noteworthy negative impact on most teams. I love that you're challenging the convention and I think it's possible to put the right team together, but you run into a couple of problems as I see it.

First, your pitchers, all of them, are going to fatigue fast and hard. You need SP7s and RP2s, you probably need extra bullpen arms, and you'd want BAL-E pitchers if at all possible. High strikeout rate pitchers, good hold catchers and pitchers, good arm outfielders are important to minimize runners advancing whenever possible. Go extra conservative on intentional walks. See if you can mitigate the range problem by finding guys who have low errors with their poor range.

Update us if you ever find the winning combo!

[Eddie E]

Yes, I have good hold pitching/catching combo as my opponents have attempted the fewest sb's in the league against me and I have the second best caught stealing rate in the league defensively. I also have the highest of assist rate in the league due to a -3 in CF and -1 in RF.

You are the second person who said the my starters will fatigue too early but it hasnt hurt me at all. Maybe because I am in Petco but my relievers are not logging too many innings so all is good there.

[J-Pav]

I think this is doable. I'm giving it a shot and I'll post observations in The Secret Formula thread so as not to highjack this one here.

Here's a team link:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=375510

[Al Hogg]

I did an experiment with a bad defensive team back when they were giving out free 1986 teams and my "Dr. Strangeloves" finished 87-75:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=85287

Of course, even that team had "3s" at 2B and SS.

I went for a hitters park and by far led the league in runs: 944 vs. 815 for the second place team.

[Valen]

I would suggest a compromise is in order for CF.
Here is my logic.

4 is below average defense. Any real life team with a below average OFer is going to either find a way to shift him to a corner OF (if he has a bat) or toss him out for a defensive specialist. Thus any CFer worth having on any roster is going to be at least average defensively.

I do not think this small shift compromises the spirit of your theme which is to prove bad defense can be overcome. But I do think it is called for to give you a sufficient domain of options from which to choose for CF.

Similar logic could be used at SS. Any really bad fielder is going to be shifted to 2B removing him from your potential domain of players. Or he is going to be replaced by a glove man and thus removing him from your domain.

Consider these questions as you ponder this.
Is your goal to prove bad defense can be overcome?
or
Is your goal to prove a team of all 4s can lose 90+ games.

[quote:294ac5fd2c]but instead ended up with one of the worst offensive teams in that league. [/quote:294ac5fd2c]
The low offensive showing I believe is because you limited your domain from which to select players too much. For an experiment of this type you need to be aiming at players who are in the real life lineup because of their bats instead of gloves. You need to differentiate between that type player and one who is in the real life lineup because the real life organization was totally incompetent. The latter in my view would be the case for any team that went with below average defense in CF or SS.