Speaker's 1912 card worth the extra $3.15m?

[kmkravitz]

$100m, DB/pre-WW2 (no NEL), birth month, theme league (each team having players born in a particular month). I have April. Using Crosley '41 (11-11, 2-2).

Other division teams in League '11 (13-17, 1-1), League '41 (10-10, 9-3), and Braves '20 (4-4, 1-1).

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=372564

Team pretty well set, but could make some adjustments with extra funds if lower priced card is worth it.

Any thoughts?

[MICHAELTARBELL]

If you need the arm (-4) and cannot improve noticeably in other areas with extra $$, then I would stay with the 13 mill version. But if you do not need the arm and really need the funds, then go ahead and do it. Not a lot of difference out side of the strong arm, and the cheaper version is a better base stealer too...

Cannot go wrong with either one. I have always had more luck with the 13 Mill version in 100 mill leagues...

my .02 :D

[JOSEPHKENDALL]

The cheaper version isn't a better base stealer.

To break it down (1912 - more expensive card, 1920 - cheaper card):

HBP - 1920
BB (L/R) - 1920/Tie
K - 1920
SI - 1912
DO - 1912
TR (L/R) - 1912/1920
HR - 1912
OBP - 1912
GDP - 1920
Clutch - 1920
BPHR - 1912
SB - 1912
Running - Tie
Defense (Range) - Tie
Defense (Arm) - 1912
Defense (Errors) - 1912

If you view everything else as equal, then I believe the defense would be the tie breaker. If you weight different aspects heavier, then you would have to determine which is best.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:9f92dab425="joekendall"]The cheaper version isn't a better base stealer.

To break it down (1912 - more expensive card, 1920 - cheaper card):

...

If you view everything else as equal, then I believe the defense would be the tie breaker. If you weight different aspects heavier, then you would have to determine which is best.[/quote:9f92dab425]

You might also want to weight the size of the advantage/disadvantage between 12 and 20.

I like the 20 card. But mostly because you can almost always put the extra $3M to good use.
For instance, an upgrade to the pen, to third base, to left field...

[kmkravitz]

Not as much flexibility in finding other players as limited by those born in April, though there are situations to think about.

Had not thought of doing comparison as joekendall did.

As always I appreciate you all taking the time to help me out!

Ken

[rburgh]

Being able to compare various cards and come to some judgment about which is the better bank for the buck in your ballpark and league is the essence of the game. It does not come easily. You can accelerate your learning curve by studying which teams do well in the leagues you enter (hopefully your own among them) and trying to figure out which players are pulling the most weight relative to salary and why.

Obviously, one of the Ruth cards is going to pull more weight than Paul Waner does, but in tough HR parks I think most guys think that the Waner cards provide more bang for the buck.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:5c91e7d413="rburgh"]Obviously, one of the Ruth cards is going to pull more weight than Paul Waner does, but in tough HR parks I think most guys think that the Waner cards provide more bang for the buck.[/quote:5c91e7d413]

That's one of the keys. Value, or as the economists call the "why I generally don't use Ruth" question, opportunity cost. Most expensive Ruth is Waner + ~$5.5M. What else can you do with the extra money. That's the opportunity cost of using Ruth.

I still think that Joe Kendall's breakdown is a touch oversimplified, but it's quick. The 12 card is better in a lot of categories (it should be, it's $3M more expensive), but it's not a wide margin in most of those categories (why people ask if it's worth the extra $3M with some regularity). I remember, back in ATG4, the Speaker 12 card, at the lower price, was one of the hardest cards to get in autodraft.

[Stormcrow2012]

[quote:39d7b348ff]If you need the arm (-4) and cannot improve noticeably in other areas with extra $$, then I would stay with the 13 mill version. But if you do not need the arm and really need the funds, then go ahead and do it. Not a lot of difference out side of the strong arm, and the cheaper version is a better base stealer too... [/quote:39d7b348ff]


When you spend for the more expensive Tris Speaker card it is not for his arm (or if it is, you do not know what you are doing) it is for his base stealing. Arm ratings for outfielders are one of the least important ratings and greatly overrated.

[AeroDave10]

[quote:574030931b="Stormcrow2012"]When you spend for the more expensive Tris Speaker card it is not for his arm (or if it is, you do not know what you are doing) it is for his base stealing. Arm ratings for outfielders are one of the least important ratings and greatly overrated.[/quote:574030931b]

I think if you spend 3M extra for basestealing, then you might not know what you're doing. :P

ATG is dominated by strong throwing arms behind home plate, which severely limits how many bases your teams can steal, or at least compromises the stealing success rate you might hope to achieve.

The 3M is for a combination of increased stealing, defense, and hitting ability.

[Stormcrow2012]

I do not disagree with anything AeroDave is saying, except even with all those great catchers' arms Tris Speaker's base stealing numbers (15-19) are worth a hell of a lot more than his (-4) arm. I am in a league right now where Tony Gwynn has 73 stolen bases and the team has 338 stolen bases. While these are not even close to the records they have helped my team compete in a very tough division. I am currently (82-68) and in 3rd place with NevDully bringing up the rear in 4th place (probably the only time he has finished that low, EVER). So base stealing does matter, and outfielder's arms are way overrated.

An outfielder with a (-4) arm will save a team maybe five or six runs (at most) versus an outfielder with a (-1) arm over a 162 game season.