Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

by **WeatherNut** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:12 pm

By my feeble calculations for Hugh Duffy in Fulton County...Diamond Dope style:

L/R
AB - 94/94
H - 66.25/51.65
2B - 18.5/11.45
3B - 4.0/4.15
HR - 10.0/7.0
TB - 122.75/92.40
BB - 14/14
HBP - 0/0
AVG - .705/.549
OBP - .743/.608
SLG - 1.306/.983
RC/27 - 88.74/35.81
BR - 46.33/30.93
NERP - 51.95/38.34

Use at you own risk.

WN

by **OakAth72** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:20 pm

[quote:bdf73911d0="WeatherNut"]You mean, like, "walk him" even with the bases empty?

WN[/quote:bdf73911d0]

It was stated tongue in cheek..... but that being said there were a few bases empty intentional walks for Bonds and I believe even a bases loaded intentional walk.

by **Salty** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:26 pm

I think that when we were discussing BP3 I proposed an intentionally walk batter in certain situations.

Bonds would be a definite intentional walk for me if for example I was facing a team where he was the primary big hitter- maybe even with no one on base.
Im not 1000% certain this would be a great strategy, but Id sure give it a shot.

by **supertyphoon** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:34 pm

One thousand percent? Wow.

:D

by **rjohaire** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:41 pm

Bernie
Can u list the new players (a spreadsheet would be great) on Thursday?
Searcing the whole data base for a new name is a bit onerous.
Thx

by **The Last Druid** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:13 pm

No, I want the '94 Thompson. I like 15 game injury risks, they are easier to draft. And a .130 point difference in slugging pct makes '94 the card I really want. 28 triples too, .415 ba. Actually the '87 card is also a 15 game risk.

by **danielz** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:19 pm

That was definitely Hugh Duffy's steroid year. His next best season has him slugging 200 points lower.

by **WeatherNut** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:23 pm

[quote:827a46a1b1]That was definitely Hugh Duffy's steroid year. His next best season has him slugging 200 points lower.[/quote:827a46a1b1]

Must be a '90s thing.

WN

by **Paul_Long71** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:35 pm

not to be a spoilsport (or maybe JUST to be a spoilsport), but I thought we weren't just picking the best year from each "All-Time Great" but rather the best years from the very best and good or representative years from the next tier, etc....

I know the old pre-1900 guys were good and all, but should they (Duffy, Delahanty, Thompson others...) be the best cards in the set. How about a good Duffy year and great years from the other 2 or something.

I mean, in my opinion, the best 10 (or 20) cards in the set should also match what most of us would say are the 10 (or 20) best players ever, right. and while I'd include the 1800 greats in my top 50 list, I don't think I'd put any of them in the top 10 with the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Speaker, Bonds (tough to type that), Gibson, Charleston, Hornsby, Mays, Mantle, etc...

Otherwise let's pick the best year possible from every "great" player.

maybe I'm wrong and that is what we have, just throwing this out there.

by **The Last Druid** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:32 pm

When Mex is in the lineup, all opposing hitters should go down two scales on their bunting. A becomes C, B becomes D, and C and D become 3-4-1 double plays!

That 1e9 doesn't do the guy justice. Another limitation of the strat coding system.

Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

ATG new card teasers (new for Wed. 9/14)

Hugh Duffy...

Who is online