Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Man, it seems people love Yankee Stadium. Actually it's not the stadium, it's the damned Yankees. I am in a public league with THREE Yankee Stadiums. There's also Fenway, Riverfront, Murph, Memorial, Alrington, County, Dodger and the Kingdome. Folks LOVE hitting.

Wish there was a rule for stadiums -- only ONE representative stadium per team per league. This is how we end up with hitting numbers out of the 1930s (or 50s, or 90s).

On the other hand, it seems to actually pay off to play in a small park in a public league. Draft good pitchers, who become GREAT in the small park, and can survive on the road. Get hitters who get on base and/or hit for average (a single has greater calue in the small park than in the big park). Plus, your hitters perform way above their level when they visit hitter's parks.

Starting Pitching+Solid Defense+Balanced lineup (little guys and big guys)=a competitive team EVERY TIME. Why people gamble on starting pitching so much, I have no idea. But they do.

[quote:3bfdfa7822]Wish there was a rule for stadiums -- only ONE representative stadium per team per league.[/quote:3bfdfa7822]
Play in private leagues. You have no control over the public.

Honestiago,
The variety of parks is what makes each season unique. Each league(and division) can have its own personality. Some leagues turn into 'brute power' leagues, some have lots of speed/pitching parks. I dont know it is that people 'love Yankee Stadium', or its just a nuetral park. Several of the parks you list are just good nuetral parks. Memorial, Countryand Yankee are similar and even Arlington isn't too extreme. Yankee Stadium just gets chosen more than County Stadium because of the recognition factor. I have seen LOTS of Fenway teams since the R-Sox won the World Series. People like to play in their favorite teams park.
Your theory for a 'competitive team every time' may well be correct. You can be competitive with lots of different approaches (IMO). Sometimes its fun to gamble on different approaches. I dont think any 1 approach is always correct. You cant get tied down to just certain players, parks or approaches. That would be boring anyway... :)

Guess I don't like to experiment too much. You may be right that people are just picking neutral parks. But really, if it's all about neutrality, then why not go with Veteran's? You don't see that much. I really do think Yankee Stadium gets selected because there are so many Yankee fans. It's no big deal, I know, but, geez, THREE in the same league?

I guess yountfan's advice about doing the private leagues more often would be good for me to follow. In our Am-Nat league, I was forced to make some compromises about certain players, to accept certain team shortcomings that I ABHOR (lack of speed, some REALLY bad D in the IF, good SP, but not necessarily GREAT). That's fun, but I still have my fallbacks: middle IF defense, good SP, a lockdown closer, moving runners, etc. Maybe after I earn a few credits (IF I earn them) I'll experiment a little more. In fact, it might be nice to have enough credits to spread around between "signature" teams, and experimental ones. I'd like to try someday fielding a team with HR hitters from pitcher's parks playing in the Kingdome (Balboni, Glenn Davis, White, Brett). I'd have to live with a 4.70 ERA, though, and that gives me the creeps! :)

Regardless of your home field, you MUST not settle for second tier offensive players. The bottom line in this game is you need to be able to produce runs, regardless of your pitching situation.

If you have a poor performing pitching staff, you just need to outscore your opponent - that's why some guys choose the Kingdome, Wrigley, etc. because it's always a slugfest. If you have a great pitching staff, you still need to score runs to be successful. Currently, I have a team where I broke the bank with my pitching staff, and chose Comiskey. My offense was filled with a couple of studs, the rest - middle of the road guys with good OBP. Well, to make a long story short, the team is miserable. My pitching staff is performing above average, but I can't score any runs. All the free agents are sloppy seconds and I'm stuck with a team resembling the real life Minnesota Twins. Good pitching, no hitting.

So, I guess balance is nice, BUT.....hitting will take you to the post season, more so than pitching and defense. If you get lucky enough to get all three, you've got a 100 win season! :D

Well, I can turn over what you said, and we'll both probably be right. Seems to me that limiting the other team's runs takes pressure off your offense. I agree you need some frontline studs in your lineup, or some great years outa the lesser lights, but a good starting staff backed by great D makes you consistently competitive. I'd rather gamble on my hitters, since there's more of them, and I can dump players until someone hits. Those really good SP's are like gold. They pitch well, they pitch consistently, they pitch deep. You have less pressure on your relief staff. Combine that with a closer, and you've got a winning formula.

See, to me it's really all about run differential. Whether you limit your opponent or bash them to death, the teams with the greatest differential are going to be the playoff teams. I still think a little ball team, for all its limitations, is more consistent than a slugger team. You're going to win 50 and lose 50 -- what can you do in the other metaphorical "50?" Set yourself up to win those close ones.

That's why I look to the knowns in the 80s game -- running/stealing, bat control, defense, pitcher endurance (and, to a lesser extent, pitcher hold rating). Obviously, it's a question of style, but when you have some things to count on, why not take advantage of them? If I can count on fewer errors, the ability to get into scoring position, shortening my bullpen, then having someone to lock it down, then I believe I increase my chances of taking 30-40 of those other 62 games.

Try three teams using the same park in one DIVISION. In 2005, I was one of three Petco teams in my DIVISION. And then there were a few more Petco teams in my league.

I can only imagine the run scoring there.

Oh, well, it IS interesting to offer theories and such. Nothing is 100% fullproof, right? I know in another thread it was mentioned "have a philosophy and stick to it." Guess that makes sense, right? I just don't dig big hitting leagues. It all gets skewed toward the hitters. The 80s was the most competitive decade in baseball history, with various styles winning out (Cards, Twins, Royals, Tigers, Dodgers). The common thread is almost always good SP, though -- at least a couple, eh?

Of course if you get the right slugging hitters they can make your pitching better with there defense (Yount, Mattingly, Carter, G Thomas, etc.) Since 50% of the time you are on the pitchers card and 25.9% of those times it refers you back to the 8 hitters cards in your lineup(didn't include pitchjers card X) to look at range and E rating why not get your hitters first? Unless my math is wrong and it very well maybe, why would you always pick pitchers 1st when the results on there card is only used 37.05% of the time? :D

Jet40

Oh, I agree with looking at fielding. We all know you need good middle IF defense, which you can get pretty cheaply. Since that same pitcher is going to be hit 50% of the time tgrough 6 innings (9 out of 18 batters), you want the best you can get out there.

It's just a preference, of course. I just think starting pitching is a priority.