conventional wisdom

[Essex Moosemen]

the first thing I learned about how to play this game was to have strong defense up the middle. That was the one sacrosanct rule that everyone seemed to preach was inviolable. Now, it seems to me in 2006 that is being turned on it's head. I've seen quite a few teams with 3's at SS and 2B who are not only winning, but walking away with it.

Is it time to rethink the "no 3's" dogma?? :?

[geekor]

Well for me it was not never no 3's, it was no 3's [b:c3395ef1ac][u:c3395ef1ac]unless[/u:c3395ef1ac][/b:c3395ef1ac] the bat made up for it.

Funny thing is I won my only championship in 03 with B Giles (a 4) in CF!

[visick]

I think geekor has a good point.

We all know Michael Young can hit. If he hits .350 w/ .375 OBP can you win? I think so.

I'd still grab a late inning defensive replacement for him though... :D

[bleacher_creature]

The thought of Michael Young in SFN or HON makes me want to spend another $24.95.

[geekor]

I have M Young on a few 06 teams, all doing rather well....

well all know a 3 will cost you roughly 14 runs over the season. I think M Young will more than make that up with his bat. Of course if he slumps at the plate, then he is a waste.

Which is a reason they have their hot prospect who is being forced to learn 2nd when he was raised as a SS, and M Young was a great def 2b...... why doesn't Texas switch them??

[visick]

Wasn't he (Young) a 1 in 2003 Strat @ 2B?

[LANCEBOUSLEY]

if'n he played 2b he'd cost as much as roberts i think.

[rgimbel]

I think it is all relative. If you are spending and extra 3 million to get roberts at 2nd instead of a 3 than it is a waste of money but if wilson is less than 3 million and vizquel is less than 3 million and he doesnt give you much more bat than wilson than it is a no brainer. you can win with ones and you can win with 3's it all depends on who they are and what park you are in.