Spicki - 41.3 with no ballparks for Chavez is flat out wrong. The number is 39 - period...
Chavez is a terrible lead off hitter...
I'm sure everyone in the league wants you to keep him there...
Let's get the Champions League Off the Ground-check in here
by michael_kofsky » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:50 pm
- michael_kofsky
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by uncle ny » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:17 am
so did we "decide"
1. a team w/ a rp over 200 innings pitched is breaking the rules and therefore cannot be crowned champ?
2. a team w/ a rp over 200 innings pitched is fine and can win the tour?
3. a team w/ a rp over 200 innings pitched can win the tour but there'd have to be an * next to his/her name for not following the spirit of the game (a la bonds)?
4. something else???
since we're well into the season, unless i missed something (always possible give my forced proclivity for skipping over many of the posts here) perhaps we ought to post an official "ruling".
1. a team w/ a rp over 200 innings pitched is breaking the rules and therefore cannot be crowned champ?
2. a team w/ a rp over 200 innings pitched is fine and can win the tour?
3. a team w/ a rp over 200 innings pitched can win the tour but there'd have to be an * next to his/her name for not following the spirit of the game (a la bonds)?
4. something else???
since we're well into the season, unless i missed something (always possible give my forced proclivity for skipping over many of the posts here) perhaps we ought to post an official "ruling".
- uncle ny
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by UTBill » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:35 am
Uncle, no, I don't think there was ever any ruling. The penalty wouldn't make much of a difference here, as we're already in the finals. I think it is a matter of a gentleman's rule, if you will. I don't plan on having a reliever going over 200IP unless we are going to allow it. However, whoever wins this league, wins the tour. I think it will end up being cutthroat, so don't expect everyone to abide by max 200IP for relievers.
Just my $.02.
Just my $.02.
- UTBill
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:46 am
Both mesquiton and spicki make valid points---many of which I would agree if we were to play face to face---but this is a league with a salarial CAP. In leagues with cap, the art of managing is to increase the value of your players---make your 5M hitter a 6M, perhaps even a 7M hitter. And it is simply impossible to increase the value of a player that has many homeruns when this player is leading off.
Now, Abreu is a totally different case; he's a class of his own. While he has some hrs, he doesn't have a ton, and most of his on-base come from walks and singles, which is what you want from your lead-off. Even if you take away Abreu's homeruns, he's still in the top 10 for on-base in the league. So in his case, homeruns are not detriemental to his value. But once you take away Chavez's hr vs rhp, the on-base is scarce.
To take spicki point by point:
1. True, we can be sure of only 1 inning that a lead-off leads off. Like spicki says, the rest of the homers count just as well. Still, Chavez will be hitting in front of Edmonds at-bat after at-bat. As I say in the paragraph on Abreu above; the biggest problem of Chavez (vs rhp) is not his homeruns, but his lack of walks/single/doubles that will set the table for Edmonds and Ramirez. While there will be times where Chavez will finish the inning, and a new start will await Edmonds; most of the time Edmonds will hit in the same inning than Chavez, and will hit with nobody on base too many times.
2. True.
3. I agreed back that Chavez has some good potential vs lhp. My main criticism was vs rhp.
4. .360 includes vs rhp and vs lhp....probably more like .340 vs rhp. Plus, this on-base comes with no stealing star---the three players following Chavez have lower on-base percentages because of his lack of speed. When this is consider, and when you take away homeruns from the "on-base" percentage as I believe it should be, then Chavez is probably around .300 vs rhp.
Now, Abreu is a totally different case; he's a class of his own. While he has some hrs, he doesn't have a ton, and most of his on-base come from walks and singles, which is what you want from your lead-off. Even if you take away Abreu's homeruns, he's still in the top 10 for on-base in the league. So in his case, homeruns are not detriemental to his value. But once you take away Chavez's hr vs rhp, the on-base is scarce.
To take spicki point by point:
1. True, we can be sure of only 1 inning that a lead-off leads off. Like spicki says, the rest of the homers count just as well. Still, Chavez will be hitting in front of Edmonds at-bat after at-bat. As I say in the paragraph on Abreu above; the biggest problem of Chavez (vs rhp) is not his homeruns, but his lack of walks/single/doubles that will set the table for Edmonds and Ramirez. While there will be times where Chavez will finish the inning, and a new start will await Edmonds; most of the time Edmonds will hit in the same inning than Chavez, and will hit with nobody on base too many times.
2. True.
3. I agreed back that Chavez has some good potential vs lhp. My main criticism was vs rhp.
4. .360 includes vs rhp and vs lhp....probably more like .340 vs rhp. Plus, this on-base comes with no stealing star---the three players following Chavez have lower on-base percentages because of his lack of speed. When this is consider, and when you take away homeruns from the "on-base" percentage as I believe it should be, then Chavez is probably around .300 vs rhp.
Last edited by MARCPELLETIER on Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by michael_kofsky » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:50 am
Spicki - Some of us have real lives and for stretches of time this game takes a complete backseat. Obviously, you are a complete computer geek with nothing but time on his hands. That being said, what I said is still 100% factually correct. YOU CANNOT ADD. Moreover, since I have some free time now, I challenge you to a heads-up competition anytime, anyplace (face to face or via netplay). We will draft teams and I will kick your sorry ass...
- michael_kofsky
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by mesquiton » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:44 am
[quote:297c5ca04d]...it is simply impossible to increase the value of a player that has many homeruns when this player is leading off.[/quote:297c5ca04d]
With a player like Beltran, with excellent qualities for both leadoff and cleanup, "value" is a matter of whether maximizing leadoff or cleanup will produce the most runs, which in turn depends on the makeup of your team.
If you have plenty of other sluggers to clean the bases, you might indeed increase his value by playing him at leadoff. The wild card is the extra PAs at leadoff, and the loss of RBI can be greatly reduced by having some OB at the bottom of your lineup, which also increases the value of those bottom players.
Let's see you run that one thru your number cruncher! :wink:
With a player like Beltran, with excellent qualities for both leadoff and cleanup, "value" is a matter of whether maximizing leadoff or cleanup will produce the most runs, which in turn depends on the makeup of your team.
If you have plenty of other sluggers to clean the bases, you might indeed increase his value by playing him at leadoff. The wild card is the extra PAs at leadoff, and the loss of RBI can be greatly reduced by having some OB at the bottom of your lineup, which also increases the value of those bottom players.
Let's see you run that one thru your number cruncher! :wink:
- mesquiton
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:42 am
all right, let me replace "impossible" by "very difficult" :lol:
Nonetheless, you start with one strike, so to speak, because even if the bottom of the line-up is loaded of on-base, a lead-off will start an inning 12% more time than a #3 hitter---20% of all innings are started by your lead-off, while 8% of all your innings are started by your #3 hitter--the seemingly natural spot for Beltran. In a season, there is approximately 1430 innings, so by having Beltran #1 instead of #3, you have 286 innings that starts with Beltran compared to 114 innings. Even with considering Beltran's speed, and even if we provide Beltran with 50 additional at-bats over the course of season because he hits #1 instead of #3, all these extras hardly compensates for these additional 172 innings that Beltran will lead off instead of waiting on-deck and potentially crushing in rbis.
Nonetheless, you start with one strike, so to speak, because even if the bottom of the line-up is loaded of on-base, a lead-off will start an inning 12% more time than a #3 hitter---20% of all innings are started by your lead-off, while 8% of all your innings are started by your #3 hitter--the seemingly natural spot for Beltran. In a season, there is approximately 1430 innings, so by having Beltran #1 instead of #3, you have 286 innings that starts with Beltran compared to 114 innings. Even with considering Beltran's speed, and even if we provide Beltran with 50 additional at-bats over the course of season because he hits #1 instead of #3, all these extras hardly compensates for these additional 172 innings that Beltran will lead off instead of waiting on-deck and potentially crushing in rbis.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by mesquiton » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:10 am
But what about the poor guy Beltran replaces in the #3 slot? Where will he go? How will that affect his production? And who replaces Beltran at leadoff? How will his production be affected? And who fills the hole he leaves behind? What will that do to the players around him? How many runs will all these things add up to, exactly???
ps: has the smoke pouring out of your ears ever set off your fire alarm? :D
ps: has the smoke pouring out of your ears ever set off your fire alarm? :D
- mesquiton
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to --- Player's Championship
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests