Hack Wilson in LF?

[bontomn]

Extremely well said, Harry.

[gkhd11a]

[quote:732632680b="mrharryc"]

The 2 catcher argument is also not comparable, IMHO, because most major league squads only carry two; if they have an injury they will usually play the back-up and call up a minor leaguer. Obviously, our game here doesn't provide for that so the system makes the back-up fool-proof. Not a stretch of the rules in my book.

[/quote:732632680b]
the rules state that if the injury roll is reached the player will be injured, however the system will override that and not injure the person if you don't carry a third catcher which you are not required to do.

The rules state you cannot assign a player to a position on his card for which he is not listed, however the system will override that and play the person in LF if you do not have a valid playing LF, which you are not required to do.


The main difference is that Strat is silent about the first case and you have to know this. The second case though, is valid in the official rules of strat and anyone reading them could see the penalties utilizing this strategy (a. HAL can wreck havoc on your lineup b. the penalty for playing out of position.)

The issue I have is the relativism with which system allowed activities are judged. I am a firm believer in either there is a rule that is enforced or else there is not a rule. If an activity is not controlled by HAL, or there are stated things that imply either through experience with Strat or in the playing of the game, that can be accomplished, then I do not see how one is ok and the other worthy of getting a player kicked out of a game by another player.

Because who is to decide these rules? The player who plays the most games?

As far as the pricing issues, in game actuals Ted Williams at 10.70 plays LF and has a 10% better actual OPS than Hack so fair value in LF would indicate around 9.3 to 9.8 to me.

[JohnnyBlazers]

Wards take on Petrosian is funny and makes for entertaining reading! How much does Dr. Ward charge per session? To some degree, we are all obsessive compulsives who play a game where the results are randonmly determined. If he wants to play Wilson in LF so what? I would welcome an opponent that does this. For every run he produces, he gives it right back with that 5 in LF, further it is 9+ million that he is throwing away, thus a 100 million team would be up against a 91 million team. To me the real advantage in this game is in run prevention strategies. I'd rather put him in CF with a 3 and take my chances, but you wouldn't be maximizing your dollars there either. I have used Sutter to pitch crazy innings and no one complained:
G W L S IP H R ER K ERA WHIP
Sutter 99 27 21 21 290.2 297 114 81 311 3.53 1.30

[gkhd11a]

[quote:1a53b36fd9="johnnyblazers"] If he wants to play Wilson in LF so what? I would welcome an opponent that does this. For every run he produces, he gives it right back with that 5 in LF, further it is 9+ million that he is throwing away, thus a 100 million team would be up against a 91 million team. To me the real advantage in this game is in run prevention strategies. I'd rather put him in CF with a 3 and take my chances, but you wouldn't be maximizing your dollars there either. I have used Sutter to pitch crazy innings and no one complained:
G W L S IP H R ER K ERA WHIP
Sutter 99 27 21 21 290.2 297 114 81 311 3.53 1.30[/quote:1a53b36fd9]

Hack Wilson will be a 3 in LF, the rules of stratomatic provide this for when you play an outfielder in a position he is not rated for when moving from CF to LF you keep your CF Range, Errors and ARM.

[JohnnyBlazers]

from the Super-Advanced Rules. I think these are the rules that this game goes by though I may be wrong:

Playing a Defensive Player Out of Position

You should use your discretion about using a player out of position.

If a manager uses a player at a position not listed on his card then that player is considered a 4 or 5 fielding rating, depending on whether he ever played that position. In addition, he should be given the worst possible E rating. He should be given a +5 throwing rating if he goes to the outfield or catcher. In addition, if a player is going to catcher , give him a T-rating of 1-20 and a PB rating of 1-20. [b:8f681bfd7a]The exceptions to this rule are outfielders who may play art outfield position they are not rated for by using the following adjustments to their defensive rating (do not change their e-rating or arm):[/b:8f681bfd7a] The chart does copy and paste w/proper formatting so I copied link:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/pages/basesim/somrules.htm

The way I interpret this is as Wilson is rated 3 CF, and moves to LF, his rating stays a 3. If he were rated as a 3 LF and moves to CF, he becomes a 5. I he were a 3 RF and moves to CF he becomes a 4.

[sschu]

I did this once with Wilson (or Kiner), had no legal 1B and HAL played Hack(or Kiner) there (cannot recall which one). I had both Kiner and Hack in Hilltop but did not want that OF. :D

He hit 9th, no way around that issue.

I am too lazy to find the team link. In the end the team did OK IIRC, Hack/Kiner made some errors at 1B, it was worth it. But who wants to hit Kiner 9th?

sschu

[sschu]

Found the link.

23 errors by Kiner ... yuck. 59 HRs but only 126 RBIs. Probably still worth it.

Monster year by Hack. He had 100+ OPS points than next best. :shock:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=287297&stats=sim&onroster=1

sschu

[The Last Druid]

Having reviewed all the posts and read the relevant rules at TSN and Strat itself it seems abundantly clear that the [b:db0d25e6ae]intent [/b:db0d25e6ae]of the rules is not to allow this particular maneuver at ATG / TSN. However, it can be accomplished if the manager initially drafts an eligible left-fielder and then fills out the lineup and later drops all eligible lf'ers or if the manager leaves the lineup blank and lets Hal create the lineup. Either way it sounds like from sschu and danielz's inputs, that the manager loses control of where the otherwise ineligible fielder hits in the lineup. Unfortunately that seems to be the only cost to this strategy as Hack would stay a 3(0) in lf (it's out of place infielders who get the 5 emax penalty)

One would hope that this loophole gets closed by TSN but I don't think that it will as it would involve programming changes with the lineup or the introduction of a meaningful penalty (like all ineligible players get the 5 emax penalty eliminating the ability of an CF to play a corner OF position not listed on his card, without penalty. Either that or adopt the board game rule (which is not illogical at all) or letting any OF'er play any position with some nominal rating adjustments depending on the switch (corner guys moving to CF get penalized for example).

Scorehouse has made good on his promise to try the HACK strategy at the earliest opportunity as shown by this team that was autodrafted yesterday:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=341402

So we'll see how this all plays out. It's kind of funny in a way if one considers Nev's recent post:
[quote:db0d25e6ae]C'mon a newbie is more likely to be hamstrung by 101 other things before a bad draft card....They are just as likely to struggle because they "got" their draft card, thinking Hack would be studley in cf with Vlad Guerrero in rf and Bench behind he plate while they chose Shea 71 as their park...A bad draft is one of the easier things here to recover from. [/quote:db0d25e6ae]

Of course Scorehouse isn't a newbie but still... :lol: Kiner, Wilson and Bags should all be interesting in Shea '71. I'm looking forward to playing in that division. My team is named [i:db0d25e6ae]Time for a little. [/i:db0d25e6ae] It is managed by PAYBACK.
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=341414

Let's see how Hack in left and Kiner at DH (presumably) does compared to my OF of Mr. Bonds, Mr. Griffey and Mr. Walker (each with their best cards, not the ones currently listed).

[Mr Baseball World]

Since Kiner is rated at LF, won't it move him to LF and put Wilson in the dh slot?????? Don't think the team there employs the strategy as I believe you need noone at all on your team rated for LF.

[alvarndc]

I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest, as I think a number of good points have been raised.

One issue I would like to throw out there is something I came across recently in a live draft. It always seemd to me that a live draft was a mechanism to pick your first fifteen players. As such, in the ensuing autodraft, I have always listed the players I drafted 1-15.

In this most recent league, a manager sent out an email after the auto-draft claiming that another manager had "poached" (my term, not his) a player he had drafted in the live draft. Long story short, it seems that a common practice is for people to list their draftees at the end (11-25) in the autodraft list oder.

I chalked this up to yet ANOTHER example of "bending the rules" shall we say -- not in any way breaking them (I don't know if a rule even exists for this protocol), but certainly an area where an experienced manager gains a slight edge over a newer one by getting an increased chance of getting his 16-25 players in the autodaft, as they are listed at a higher priority.

Back to the current example, I think it needs to be said AGAIN that Petrosian needs to get over himself.

BDWards original "diagnosis" was just about the funniest post I have ever read here. Note to Strat btw: learn how to take a joke.

But let us look at what Ptrosian just recently wrote:

[quote:40443b392f="Petrosian"]
Having reviewed all the posts and read the relevant rules at TSN and Strat itself it seems abundantly clear that the [b:40443b392f]intent [/b:40443b392f]of the rules is not to allow this particular maneuver at ATG / TSN. ... Unfortunately that seems to be the only cost to this strategy as Hack would stay a 3(0) in lf (it's out of place infielders who get the 5 emax penalty)

One would hope that this loophole gets closed by TSN .... [/quote:40443b392f]

I mean really, how does Petrosian justify setting himself up as the arbiter for concluding the INTENT of the rules?? The term delusions of grandeur comes to mind...

To quote Petrosian: "It seems abundantly clear"???

To whom?? Perhaps to Pertosian. CLEARLY, as the number of replies to this thread confirms, the entire issue is a matter of legitimate dispute.