[quote:857f21e2d0]We'd all take a decent hitting 1 SS over a good hitting 3. I'm thinking, though (again) that, in cases where a 3 middle IF is a MUCH better hitter than a 2-rated one, it might be worth it to get the bat into the lineup. Seems a few people have, no?
[/quote:857f21e2d0]
I certainly have....mainly because I was stuck with Smalley in the Decade League (which is basically a keeper league). And the results thus far, I must say, have been pleasantly surprising, to say the least.
[url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/team/team_other.html?user_id=41139]Team 1[/url]
[url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/team/team_other.html?user_id=46500]Team 2[/url]
[url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/team/team_other.html?user_id=50642]Team 3[/url]
Interesting enough, Team 1 was the team in which Smalley performed the worst for me....yet that was, by far, my most successful team. On Teams 2 and 3, Smalley was very good offensively and more than made up for his defensive shortcomings. Of course, having his best (OPS-wise) and most balanced card (1983) both years didn't hurt either.
Also, he was paired with Remy (who's a VERY good defender) all three seasons, so the D up the middle wasn't all THAT bad. Now, with Remy no longer eligible in our league, I will be forced to use Sax at 2B, giving me a pair of 3's up the middle. Well, if Saxy could hit like Smalley did for me the last couple seasons, I would definitely be willing sacrifice the D.
e-ratings and 3's
28 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by nycalderon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:35 pm
I never want to have a 3 up the middle ... it never works out for me even if the guy is a stud hitter. Having said that Templeton's high error number is not that big a deal to me... but range rating matters to me at SS.
- nycalderon
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nycalderon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Looking at Sykes' Councilman team I really don't know how he won a championship with that squad. The pitching is good at best (Eichorn rocked). Corner defense very good. MI defense subpar. Hitting is fair for a Jack Murphy team - though they did hurt righties. Not a lot of HRs for a Murphy squad.
I think you'll find more often than not that teams that start anything worse than a 2 in the MI will struggle.
I think you'll find more often than not that teams that start anything worse than a 2 in the MI will struggle.
- nycalderon
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Outta Leftfield » Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 pm
The thing is that in the regular 80's league you can virtually always get a 2B who can both hit and field. The pool at SS is shallower, but there are still enough 2's to go around, and there are some pretty good 2's who are quite cheap (Guillen, ULW, etc), so if you get one of those, you can spend money elsewhere to beef up your hitting.
But in a reduced-option theme league, you sometimes have to make a choice between hitting and fielding at SS. In a regular DH 80's league, the hitting is so overwhelming that you simply can't afford to be giving away outs on defense. But in a reduced-option theme league (which is in some ways closer to the limited pool of players in real life), esp. without the DH, the hitting isn't quite so overwhelming and getting a hitter as SS can seem like a more viable choice. Also, in such leagues, having a 3 in CF is not all that uncommon. There just aren't many 1s below 4M at CF who can hit reasonably well, and very few 2's. So a 3 CF who can actually hit starts to look like a reasonable option.
That said, somebody like Smalley might still be a reasonable choice in a regular 80's league, though I admit it's not a choice I've ever made. I really do want a good fielder at SS--my current non-theme leagues have either Burleson or Trammell.
But in a reduced-option theme league, you sometimes have to make a choice between hitting and fielding at SS. In a regular DH 80's league, the hitting is so overwhelming that you simply can't afford to be giving away outs on defense. But in a reduced-option theme league (which is in some ways closer to the limited pool of players in real life), esp. without the DH, the hitting isn't quite so overwhelming and getting a hitter as SS can seem like a more viable choice. Also, in such leagues, having a 3 in CF is not all that uncommon. There just aren't many 1s below 4M at CF who can hit reasonably well, and very few 2's. So a 3 CF who can actually hit starts to look like a reasonable option.
That said, somebody like Smalley might still be a reasonable choice in a regular 80's league, though I admit it's not a choice I've ever made. I really do want a good fielder at SS--my current non-theme leagues have either Burleson or Trammell.
- Outta Leftfield
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nycalderon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:38 pm
outa -
I agree with what you say abot the limited pool leagues. That is why I like them... in terms of player population to # of teams in league they have a more realistic distribution of good and mediocre players. I think therefore it can be a more useful strategy, as in real baseball, to occasionally go with a lead glove up the middle. It is too bad you passed on the reverse over/under as the rosters in that league are shaping up to be really interesting... some guys, more than just a few, are looking to go with 3's and 4's in the MI. While my pitching in that league looks awfully suspect I'll have Yount and White there.
I was going with Thon for a while in the 1st over/under league and he was 600SLG / 300OBP vs righties. At the time I had 4 at 1B and LF and for a while at 3B too. I have to say I felt that I had passed a tipping point in terms of defense. I unloaded Thon, though his stats were awfully good, and decided to bite the bullet with Dunston going both ways...
I agree with what you say abot the limited pool leagues. That is why I like them... in terms of player population to # of teams in league they have a more realistic distribution of good and mediocre players. I think therefore it can be a more useful strategy, as in real baseball, to occasionally go with a lead glove up the middle. It is too bad you passed on the reverse over/under as the rosters in that league are shaping up to be really interesting... some guys, more than just a few, are looking to go with 3's and 4's in the MI. While my pitching in that league looks awfully suspect I'll have Yount and White there.
I was going with Thon for a while in the 1st over/under league and he was 600SLG / 300OBP vs righties. At the time I had 4 at 1B and LF and for a while at 3B too. I have to say I felt that I had passed a tipping point in terms of defense. I unloaded Thon, though his stats were awfully good, and decided to bite the bullet with Dunston going both ways...
- nycalderon
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nycalderon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:46 pm
YF -
A great defensive club (especially in a pitchers' park) can make a mediocre staff good and a good staff great, it can win you a championship.
A great defensive club (especially in a pitchers' park) can make a mediocre staff good and a good staff great, it can win you a championship.
- nycalderon
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by YountFan » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:15 pm
I agree defense can help, but you need balance. To saciface everything for defense (or offense) is crazy. There are people who gotta have that 1. Defense is also relative. If 11 other teams have 1's up the middle you are at a disadvantage with 3's. But defense ends up being a mix of ranges and is relative to the other teams. I am in the hitters/pitchers league where half the league has to field team with no players with a rage less than 3. In this extreme example playing a four is not a giant libailty because the relative difference is one.
Given a choice we'd all take 1's but that can't happen. There are players, like Smalley, with offensive abilities above those with lower fielding ratings. These players will create more run than they lose in the field in comparison to other players with a rage of 2 for example. I'm sure some stat genius has figured all that runs created/runs allowed stuff out, but my guys says you can tollerate some medicore fielding.
My point was do be afraid of someone just because they have a higher range. They may make the difference between winning and losing.
[quote:cf5f883e24]A great defensive club (especially in a pitchers' park)[/quote:cf5f883e24]
Yes, the more you rely on pitching the more it helps to have good defense. That being said ptitching team like Oakland had crapy infielders, The Dodgers had Russell, Lopes and Sax.
Defense is just one of the factors to consider.
Given a choice we'd all take 1's but that can't happen. There are players, like Smalley, with offensive abilities above those with lower fielding ratings. These players will create more run than they lose in the field in comparison to other players with a rage of 2 for example. I'm sure some stat genius has figured all that runs created/runs allowed stuff out, but my guys says you can tollerate some medicore fielding.
My point was do be afraid of someone just because they have a higher range. They may make the difference between winning and losing.
[quote:cf5f883e24]A great defensive club (especially in a pitchers' park)[/quote:cf5f883e24]
Yes, the more you rely on pitching the more it helps to have good defense. That being said ptitching team like Oakland had crapy infielders, The Dodgers had Russell, Lopes and Sax.
Defense is just one of the factors to consider.
- YountFan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nycalderon » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:39 pm
No doubt about it ... Defense is only "one" factor... you can easily win in Strat with mediocre defense, especially in a hitters' park.
And in real-life good teams have played less than stellar defenders in the MI a lot. Heck, remember the 80's Mets played Backman, Hojo and Teufel in the MI all the time. And they were one of the best clubs of the decade. I think if we played 80's with more than 12 teams you would see the value of the 3 and 4 rated MIs rise. But the player pool in the 80's has a lot of 1's and 2's in the middle infield that can hit well enough that starting a 3 there is a big disadvantage.
YF, reverse over/under is an extremely intriguing league. I think the rosters are wild and I'm curious to see which strategies win out.
And in real-life good teams have played less than stellar defenders in the MI a lot. Heck, remember the 80's Mets played Backman, Hojo and Teufel in the MI all the time. And they were one of the best clubs of the decade. I think if we played 80's with more than 12 teams you would see the value of the 3 and 4 rated MIs rise. But the player pool in the 80's has a lot of 1's and 2's in the middle infield that can hit well enough that starting a 3 there is a big disadvantage.
YF, reverse over/under is an extremely intriguing league. I think the rosters are wild and I'm curious to see which strategies win out.
- nycalderon
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by YountFan » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:42 pm
[quote:98e9191ca4] reverse over/under is an extremely intriguing league[/quote:98e9191ca4]It is a CRAZY league when the BEST cards will win out because there are NO hitters left and only a few pitchers. It just may be a TRADING league.
- YountFan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
28 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: '70s, '80s, '90s
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests