Burleson vs. Metzger

[FAaron]

I always pick Metzger if he is available in a draft league. The other "1" shortstops (Burleson, Bowa, Concepcion, Belanger) just don't hit enough to justify the expense, and the "2" defenders don't hit enough to justify the drop in range. He is one of the best values in '70s, and like the others have said, bat him 9th (or 8th if pitchers hit) and use the minimum $2 million additional $$$ for other parts of your team.

[LMBombers]

Then why aren't Lind and Flynn used the same way in the 80's game?

I still say that when Burleson's worst card is the same as Metzger's best and you have a 40% chance of getting a .290 hitter in Burleson, he is the better option at SS over Mr. Automatic Out Metzger. He may take away some hits with his glove but he gives them right back with his bat. Personally I would rather try someone else.

It is just a personal opinion and differing opinions on players is a good thing for everybody. 8-)

[The Senators]

I realized how highly thought of Metzger is when I listed him 4th in my draft order and didn't get him. Pretty good for a guy you hope will hit .220.

[JONCHUCKERY]

[quote:eb693baf14="LMBombers"]
I still say that when Burleson's worst card is the same as Metzger's best and you have a 40% chance of getting a .290 hitter in Burleson, he is the better option at SS over Mr. Automatic Out Metzger. He may take away some hits with his glove but he gives them right back with his bat. Personally I would rather try someone else.
[/quote:eb693baf14]

I've played Metzger 14 times to date and kept him for duration of all 14 seasons. I keep career spreadsheets on certain players. Here's his career for me...

Roger Metzger 1972 80M Ful 162 578 46 118 18 4 1 45 59 83 10/8 .204 .274 .254
1975 80M Ful 158 544 52 123 12 8 2 36 31 48 11/6 .226 .266 .289
1973 80M Ful 154 565 42 158 19 11 2 60 31 81 15/6 .280 .313 .363
1972 80M Wrig 162 586 58 145 18 4 1 28 39 68 9/14 .247 .294 .297
1971 80M Ful 160 583 63 133 12 14 0 53 48 49 13/9 .228 .288 .297
1971 80M Ful 160 567 46 128 17 14 0 46 45 47 11/7 .226 .285 .305
1976 80M Busch 149 494 36 106 12 6 0 40 39 66 7/7 .215 .270 .263
1976 80M Ful 148 494 37 107 12 6 0 43 56 74 1/3 .217 .293 .265
1973 80M Tiger 158 587 50 139 14 13 0 56 32 82 5/6 .239 .276 .305
1972 80M Ful 162 572 58 121 9 1 1 42 71 78 11/8 .212 .296 .236
1976 80M Ful 162 538 54 107 29 4 0 50 63 64 4/3 .199 .278 .268
1975 80M Royals 158 506 39 106 14 7 2 62 37 46 6/2 .210 .260 .277
1976 80M Royals 152 489 47 112 19 6 0 43 42 57 13/12 .229 .288 .292
1971 80M Rivfrt 161 572 53 148 19 8 0 45 35 50 9/13 .259 .306 .320

A basic breakdown is this...
1. he's played in 160+ games 7 of 14 times
2. never played less than 148 games
3. I've only hit his best card [b:eb693baf14]twice[/b:eb693baf14] in 14 seasons
4. he averages 49RS & 46RBI per season for me...Burleson is twice+ his salary so would't he have to produce twice as much
5. he's won 4 gold gloves for me

Metzger is the last guy I complain about on my teams.

[LMBombers]

You are touting a player that has hit UNDER .230 in 10 of 14 seasons? :shock: I would rather have Templeton 2e44 hitting .300 and stealing bases. I don't like having a rally killer in my lineup.....but thats just me.

Check out how many times the SS(X) comes up during a game. It is about 2 times per game it seems on average. However he is going to bat about 4 times. Therefore I think the emphasis should be tilted a little towards offense rather than defense when given a choice. That is why I would rather have Burleson or Templeton (or many others) over Metzger. My reasoning is certainly not scientific and may not even be correct but it seems logical to me.

[YountFan]

[quote:c9633f00fc]Then why aren't Lind and Flynn used the same way in the 80's game? [/quote:c9633f00fc]Because it is a different game where you need more offense to compete

[JONCHUCKERY]

[quote:824572ec9a="LMBombers"]You are touting a player that has hit UNDER .230 in 10 of 14 seasons? :shock: I would rather have Templeton 2e44 hitting .300 and stealing bases. I don't like having a rally killer in my lineup.....but thats just me.[/quote:824572ec9a]

But again LM, to get Burleson/Belanger you have to [b:824572ec9a]spend more than twice as much[/b:824572ec9a] as Metzger. Again if you are doubling the salary at a position it better yield dramatic results. Say Burleson produces about 20-25 runs more per season than Metzger...Is that worth 2mil more just to say you got Burleson?

Would you rather have Metzger/Bench or Fisk/Burleson? Or how about Metzger/Brett or Burleson/Bill Robinson? Not everyone's best/worst year but a season for season avg which grouping would you rather have?

[LMBombers]

Well in your choices Brett or Bench better produce as much as both of the other two players since you get nothing out of Metzger. No love for Bill Robinson? I have gotten great production out of him several times. Of the four options you list I like the Burleson/Fisk combo the best. Then again I am a Red Sox fan. :lol: Actually I don't let that bias cloud my judgement on SOM players.

BTW, I don't like Belanger at all. I would rather use Metzger than Belanger. No matter who you prefer to use this has been an enjoyable conversation!

[JONCHUCKERY]

[quote:3827860b83="LMBombers"] Of the four options you list I like the Burleson/Fisk combo the best. Then again I am a Red Sox fan. :lol: Actually I don't let that bias cloud my judgement on SOM players.
[/quote:3827860b83]

Then quit winning all the time in the 1973 league!!! :lol: Don't you want to see the Sox win a pennant? :P

[voovits]

[quote:14237eb588="LMBombers"]You are touting a player that has hit UNDER .230 in 10 of 14 seasons? :shock: I would rather have Templeton 2e44 hitting .300 and stealing bases. I don't like having a rally killer in my lineup.....but thats just me.

Check out how many times the SS(X) comes up during a game. It is about 2 times per game it seems on average. However he is going to bat about 4 times. Therefore I think the emphasis should be tilted a little towards offense rather than defense when given a choice. That is why I would rather have Burleson or Templeton (or many others) over Metzger. My reasoning is certainly not scientific and may not even be correct but it seems logical to me.[/quote:14237eb588]

How I love the CDROM game!
I simulated an entire season with 30 teams in the CDROM game and did some analysis of the x-rolls
Out of the 30 team league I was able to get accurate results from 12 of them (It's tough to analyze the results when non SS's or guys who don't have SS as their primary position play the position), so this is not a full 30 team sample, but of 12 teams who played only primary SSs at the position.
The fewest number of times a GB(ss)x roll came up for a team was exactly 162 times, for those who are not math proficient, that's exactly 1 per game. The most amount of times a SSx roll came up was 210. That's approx 1.3 times per game.
The total number of SSx rolls out of the 12 teams analyzed came out to 2264 times or 188 2/3 times per season, which averages approx 1.16 times per game.
Considering a player batting 9th will still get at least 3 plate appearances per game, I'd take the better offensive guy, even considering Metzger has a lower E rating.
I agree in that I don't like Belanger either, he's certainly not worth the price, but I disagree in that Burleson has to produce twice as much offensively in order to make his cost worth it. Burleson producing 20-25 more runs than Metzger to me is worth it. Not even considering the extra at bats that will come after Burleson hits as opposed to Metzger hits, (which will in theory produce more runs as well, especially if it means the top of the order coming up next) the extra 20-25 runs will potentially help swing a handful of 1 run losses into wins, or at least extra innings where you still have a chance to win (and get more ABs).
Don't get me wrong, Burlseon has 2 awful years that I wouldn't keep for that price, but his other 3 years are more than worth it to me.
I'll take Burleson any day.