Can you win with a "3" at shortstop????

[JAMESBEESON]

I won with Jimmy Dykes at short he was a 3, my team was a 1950's style team.

[BRIANSIELSKI]

[quote:5d6a846f8f]Amazing. Almost as Amazin' as the Amazin Mets. Why are people so lazy to trade?! Theyd rather take a 20% "hit" going free agent route. If that's the case then I guess it doesnt matter how much you spend on draft day.
[/quote:5d6a846f8f]

Easy ... it is rearely possible to find the right mix of players that you want to give up and he needs, for the right dollar amount.

Most managers (if any) don't keep a few million dollars sitting unused for future trades.

I've wanted to trade all the time ... but can't make it work because of player value and what he (and I) are willing to deal.

It's rare to find a match ... and you have to find a match. What's good for you, is not good for him a lot of times ... so why should he trade.

Doc

[CATom]

you can win with a "3" at shortstop! The real challenge is to win with a "4" at shortstop and a "3" at second base with Pierre patrolling centerfield!!!

Tom.

[HUDAMAN]

FYI, Michael Young can be hurt, but only for the remainder of the game in which he gets an injury roll (due not to his 162 games played, but to his 680+ Plate appearances). So, he'll start every game, but there is no guarantee he'll finish every game, unlike say, Teixera, who has no injury roll on his card at all.

I'd disagree however that having no injury roll "more than offsets" his defense. If he couldn't hit, he'd be out there HURTING you for 162 games, so while the ironman status has value, it's a minor consideration compared to defense.

[RefutationR]

I've had great success putting Bernie Castro(3e44) at 2B vs. righties. He sucks in the field but is great offensively, and <1 mil. Nobody else seems to know about him, either. I don't think there's any value like that at SS, tho.

[durantjerry]

Please define "great success".

[RefutationR]

Perhaps not everyone can agree on what is great success. But I've had him on 3 teams, 2 in Kauffmann, 1 in Coors. The 2 Kauffman teams made it to the finals, won one and lost one. Those teams won 96 and 83 games(admittedly, the 83 win team was lucky to get to the finals). The Coors team won 87 games and missed the playoffs by 1 game. In hindsight, he's probably not great for Coors, but man is he cheap. His numbers have been consistently around .300 BA vs. righties and .360 OB, with >40 SB's and, of course, about 40 errors. He's pretty bad vs. lefties, tho, so I've learned to platoon him. I actually consider him a very key player on those teams, as 2B is generally so crappy offensively for so much money. He has allowed me to save a bunch there and put it into pitching, other positions, etc. I have him on a new team as my DH.

[Page2]

Hi,

Curious anyone have a rule of thumb relating to AVG. and using a 2 or a 3? ie if the "2" rated player I am looking at is a .250 hitter the "3" must hit at least what .310 to make up for the difference. I know price, park, and a host of other factors come into play. But curious all other things being equal is there a difference in BA that you say I am going with the "3" over the "2" cause he hits "X" amount of points higher?

Page2

[J-Pav]

[b:fb31a8a8dc]Page2[/b:fb31a8a8dc]:

Hope this helps. This is from [b:fb31a8a8dc]DeanTSC[/b:fb31a8a8dc] in [i:fb31a8a8dc]The Secret Formula 2006[/i:fb31a8a8dc] thread:

http://andrew-stevens.tripod.com/index/stratfield.html

Larkin OPS vs. R in a 8/8/8/8 stadium: .461 OBP + .404 SLG = 865
Everett OPS vs. R in same: .329 OBP + .308 SLG = 637
OPS on a ss(X) to Larkin (4e8): 683
OPS on a ss(X) to Everett (1e17): 190
Ratio of X-rolls on defense to times at bat on offense for shortstops: .583

Sooo, Larkin is 228 OPS points better than Everett on offense, but 287 OPS points (.583 * (683 - 190)) points worse on defense.

[Page2]

Hi J-Pav,

I don't know if I should be glad or sad you posted that link. I am already going to have a short weekend and now I will be eating up that short time reading the info on that link. Thanks, for the link.

Page2