ATG a hitters game? What am I missing?

[nevdully's]

I wanted to address some things mentioned by Rick because I have a different take on them, and think a dialogue could prove interesting.

I do not want in any way, shape or form for anyone to think I'm disrespecting Rick because that's not my intention, although with a difference of opinion it's often assumed to be. :(


[b:5f61936e8d]Quote:[/b:5f61936e8d]
Well, I never thought that ATG was a slugger's game. In my experience, pitching and defense trump power nearly every time. [b:5f61936e8d]Quote[/b:5f61936e8d]

I haven't found it's accurate to say pitching and defense trumps power almost every time. I've powered my way to a good amount of titles, many over pitching teams, both in the leagues to get to the playoffs, and through the playoffs. I think if you took a consensus of the best smallball team and put it up against the best Bomber team they'd each win about 60% at home and struggle in the away park..... Remember when you talk about Bomber teams you start with Mays, but at 1(-5)e4, speed 17, he's a pretty complete player for any type team. Same as Carter at C, Yount at SS, Mathews at 3rd etc...You've got Bomber, but you're not lacking speed and D too.

I think if you ask O.T. he'd tell you he had great success going back to ATG with bomber teams, including his favorite Nettle/Wera 3b platoon and Don Money at 1b.

I know Charlie recently posted about our teams in the new Barnstormers league which he has had a little difficulty with my type of bomber team (cheap starters, deep pen, big $$$ left for top sluggers) saying this particular team is very tough to beat. His quote.......


[b:5f61936e8d] Quote [/b:5f61936e8d]This is Nev's staff in Barnstormers in my division. He is using L/R and has 11 pitchers and funnelling the majority of his pitching to Fryman and Konstancy. Through 63 games his 2 best relievers have 30% of his inning work. Those 2 relievers are better than most starting pitchers and a fraction of the cost. Makes for a very difficult team to beat. [b:5f61936e8d]Quote[/b:5f61936e8d]

Hornestnest has a great Title winning % and plays almost always in Polo.

Frank Bailey, Petrosian, PBTR win in any stadium they play in, and A.G. has great success in both type of parks....I also believe Grindi (or Roosky) play often in fenway 67 with good success.


[b:5f61936e8d]Quote[/b:5f61936e8d] I think the obvious success that players like myself, Charlie and OT, among others, had early in ATG with small-ball, P&D oriented teams has definitely contributed to the more recent preponderance of such teams. [b:5f61936e8d]Quote[/b:5f61936e8d]


I have a different look on this also. I think more owners go smallball, D and pitching because the talent pool is much greater for these type of players.

If you want Pete as your Ace but have to "settle" for 3 Finger, Koufax, Cicotte or Camnitz it's not such a big deal. Same as finding that great value 4th starter, Boyd, Nolan, Cuellar etc. one will almost always be there. And more importantly you'll almost always find a couple of top pitchers, and value on the free agent list after waivers run. This makes managing your draft card very easy and much less important to the ultimate success of your team.

When you want to go bomber, if You don't get several key guys your options become scarce in a hurry. There's not too many great options if you miss Mathews at 3rd or Mays in CF.. You got two or three SS to choose from. Carter is clearly number 1 at catcher and 2 is a d-i-s-t-a-n-t 2nd. Then what about 2b? The draft card for a bomber team becomes crucial and if you miss a player or two you could really struggle. Also [b:5f61936e8d]there a few Bomber type value hitters to select at any position.[/b:5f61936e8d] I think that's why many go small, they recognize there's just a much deeper talent pool for that type of team. It's a safer play.

Finally I have no doubt that if it was their want, [b:5f61936e8d]Rick, Charlie and other great owners could focus on any type team and produce a better than average amount of Title winners.[/b:5f61936e8d]

[sschu]

Some thoughts previously posted on a different thread:

1. Pitchers are under-priced, especially the top 10 SPs. Pete has an overall winning pecent in the 65% range, no other player in ATGII virtually insures a winning season and a playoff spot than Pete. If you make the post season, Pete's value in the playoffs is huge.

2. Cheap OBP is scarce and too expensive. One never sees Cuyler, JJ, Cobb, etc available on the wire. If you miss the high OBP guys you are in a deep hole. There are endless combos of pitching out there, not so for hitting.

3. The big sluggers, Mantle, Ruth etal are too expensive. It is hard for me to rationalize Pete at $12M and Mantle at $15M (almost) when one compares the net effect on a team, Pete is clearly more valueable.

FWIIW, sschu

[GREGKOESTER]

No disrespect intended here but I think all your thinking is skewed. I think a hitters team is more dangerous in a pitchers park and a pitching team better in a hitters park.
Just ask this question: Why does Rick and myself prefer more neutral parks to put our PITCHING oriented teams in? You definately can't question the success of that strategy. The park is helping to shore up our weaknesses. In looking back a whole bunch of my teams that wone were in hitters park leagues. Just my 2 cents.

[goffchile]

There are two different questions being asked here--one is a strategy question, the other has to do with whether the game favors hitters or pitchers in a general sense.

With the latter, I think the answer is clearly hitters--just based on aggregate statistics I see and judging by the record books. Granted most players play below their real life performances, but it seems like some hitters have an easier time putting up real life and even arguably unrealistic performances in some categories over the course of a season where pitchers rarely exceed their real life numbers.

The former question is a little more complicated. It seems to me that power and to a lesser extent obp are definitely at a premium in ATGII compared to ATGI, as sschu stated. This seems to magnify, for me at least, the importance of secondary traits, like base speed, batting average and extrabase hits, etc. as factors in determining whether I take a player or not. It also makes it more challenging to build a power hitting team. This is largely a function of pricing and the player pool, not the cards necessarily.

[The Last Druid]

Bottom line: I think the game favors those who can best assess value. Then, next in importance I suspect, is maximizing the use of the value you get in the draft, for example choosing appropriate ballparks and lineups etc. Then drafting strategies. Next comes exploiting opponents weaknesses. Ultimately though in the course of a given season, luck predominates.

I think small ball teams give you more options; especially with the pitcher's you can use. An example of this is Hunter, who is a mainstay on my small ball teams. Based on what I've seen, nobody else uses him consistently. I think that in Griffith or Forbes he is an incredible value. Obviously he can't pitch in a lot of parks on the road, but that's the province of Speer, Frock and a slew of other nickel+ pitchers. Hunter usually wins a lot more than he loses for me and the money I save on him is usually well spent on offensive players who can play defense also.

I think part of why smallball teams have an edge --if they do -- is that they can score runs on the road more easily then bomber teams, who are dependent on #'s for a substantial amount of their production, can score runs in pitcher's parks. They also let you use otherwise marginal pitchers who give up too many #'s. To put my money where my mouth is, I entered an autoleague team tonight. My park will be Forbes and the pitchers I choose (all at the bottom of the draft list) are Feller, Labine, Pascual, Jim Perry and Boswell (with a couple of Speer types so Boswell doesn't pitch in unfriendly parks). This is arguably a misguided draft strategy as they would all likely be undrafted anyway, and I could have gotten a higher waiver pick by choosing more popular pitchers that I don't get. But in the interests of time... Anyway, none of the other starters I've chosen kill you on the road with #'s but typically have a couple that get negated at home. I've only used Feller once so far and never Pascual or Labine. I haven't checked the mix of parks in the league but I think that this staff could be fairly effective. If not, at least interesting.

I do believe though that balanced teams are the most effective, whether you place them in a small ball park or a bomber park. I rarely choose neutral parks as I think more extreme parks can confer significant advantages, even with otherwise fairly balanced teams. But that's just me.

One last thought regarding value. Good defending hitters are the most valuable as they are a scare resource indeed. Especially in the 200x series.

[nevdully's]

[quote:c58b5a0a1e]I think a hitters team is more dangerous in a pitchers park and a pitching team better in a hitters park.
[/quote:c58b5a0a1e]



[quote:c58b5a0a1e]Why does Rick and myself prefer more neutral parks to put our PITCHING oriented teams in?[/quote:c58b5a0a1e]


If a pitching team is more dangerous in a hitters park why put them in a nuetral park?

[edbazo]

Pitching teams, hitting teams, slugging teams, pitchers in a hitting park, hitters in a pitching park, they ALL work. Most of us are more comfortable with certain types of teams, and certain types of teams may work better given the makeup of the league (both ballparks and owners.)

Overall, I think that the pricing is very, very good. I'm sure all of us can point to certain players that we feel are excellent values, but the players we end up pointing to are the ones that we tend to use on teams that we are comfortable (and successful) with.

[quote:8f7d3d64a5]Finally I have no doubt that if it was their want, Rick, Charlie and other great owners could focus on any type team and produce a better than average amount of Title winners.[/quote:8f7d3d64a5]

Nev said it all.

[GREGKOESTER]

The reason I prefer neutral type parks is:
1. It helps my weak hitting some.
2. It Keeps my strong pitching still effective against Hitter type teams. My relievers seem to be more effective.
3. It enables me to beat balanced teams consistantly.
4. When I moved my Pitching teams into neutral stadiums, my win percentage went up. I think a lot of it is because my relievers seem to do better.
5. Lastly as Ed can attest, It requires very little in season managing. I don't adjust much of anything during the season. In the extreme parks I had a tendency to over manage. Trying to get the good matchups. I don't do it in neutral parks.

I've also been getting some success with balanced teams at Briggs. I'm not sure why, but it seems to boost the hitting more than it knocks down the pitching. I've never had much success with true bomber teams.

[CHRISTIANSTOUGH]

A glorious game indeed. Cobb would steal a thousand bases. It was so easy to steal. Cobb would get a base hit and my pop would go smoke a cigar, while cobb stole, 2nd,3rd and home.
The picthers use to dominate so much that we used a rule hwere you could undo the pitcher 3x per game
That 34 shake brings back memories

[doc x]

Hey Grindi!

I'm curious as to what ballparks you consider as neutral.

And, I'm glad you're doing better healthwise! You sure have been through a lot over the last number of months.