Defense? I don't need no stinking defense!

[cirills]

One of my favorite pastimes is to plug different id numbers in and "surf" the various leagues that are running to see how players are performing in a variety of parks and divisions.

In doing so I stumbled across this particular team that currently has about a .625 winning pct. at about the half way point.

The REALLY intersting thing is that he is comfortably leading his leading his division (he plays at Safeco in a Div. with a Wrigley, a Jacobs, and a Camden Yards) with a team that features a [b:87923b7a04]"3"[/b:87923b7a04] (range factor) at [b:87923b7a04]2B, SS AND CF[/b:87923b7a04]. :shock:

[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=409&stats=sim[/url]

He does have solid pitching (3rd overall in ERA) and a productive offense (3rd overall in Runs scored) but nothing that sticks out OTHER than the [b:87923b7a04]3's at the three middle defensive positions[/b:87923b7a04].

And here we are always trying to have two's or better. :wink:

PS And sue me for posting in two different places (I also posted this thread on the Main Forum).

I just thought THIS Forum could use a shot in the arm. :roll:

[cummings2]

Thanks for sharing sandy,

dis is vewy,vewy intwesting... methinks there's a 4 in the OF as well.

Hmmm...well, I guess if you are going to give up singles having a really solid starting 4 (in a 5 man rotation) playing in a divison with supressed OBP may be the better fit...I wonder how would the pitching stats be if there were 1s up the middle.

As J-Pav worked his magic with the 05 set, I think it is possible to go with 3 all around...just be vewy vewy careful while doing so.

Now...this forum needs a shot in the arm??? ufff, either that or a blue pill. For those of us who like hanging around these whereabouts we'll take all the shots in the arm we can take.

All best of luck sandy, hope the USKL goes well for you 8)

[worrierking]

I think they've done a better job with pricing this year. One of the ways they have improved pricing is that the defensive guys are priced very high. You really have to pay for defense in the '06 game (Brian Roberts!). With that, it would make sense that playing 3's would be a more workable strategy this year than in years past. I haven't had the guts to try it myself :D , but it's probably more likely to succeed this year than in the past. I'll keep watching for this to see if it's a trend.

[cirills]

[quote:87a651de63]All best of luck sandy, hope the USKL goes well for you[/quote:87a651de63]Thanks bro.

We are actually finally getting close to turning the next page.

I think we are going to make it now!!! 8)

[MARCPELLETIER]

There is (almost) nothing wrong with playing a middle infield defense with 3s.

In the past, I used to claim that ss-1 and 2b-1 were overwhelming underpaid, and that was a time when TSN didn't appropriately assess defense. But these times are gone. So gone, in fact, that I believe that defense costs a bit too much in cases where players have good offensive cards (like in the case of B.Roberts). It is as if there is a penalty in the TSN pricing system for playing with both excellent cards and outstanding defense.

Still, in terms of line-up efficiency, the ideal line-up is still one in which the 8th and 9th slot are fuilled up with outstanding gloves and poor bats. So by playing Clayton in the 9th slot, it is still not ideal, but the cost isn't great--perhaps one win compared to a team with Everett hitting 9th. This being said, this disadvantage can be at least in part overcome if you employ lots of pinch-hitting.


The case of of-4 is different, though. I still think it's a bad idea to play with a of-4 because of the sharp drop in defensive ratings between of-3 and of-4, but then again, the cost of playing with a of-4 is rather limited---perhaps 1 or 2 wins. Thus, an outstanding team that could go 105-57 would have its record down only to about 103-59 with playing a of-4.

Bottom-line: defense doesn't come cheap as in the past, so there is no more obligation to go with outstanding defense.

[cirills]

Thanks Lucky, I was hoping you would weigh in.

My take on this year's pricing is similar to yours -- best ever -- with one caveat.

They seem to charge TOO much for defense at 2b, SS and CF in my opinion -- making the best values those in the 3's -- and clearly we see above that you can have success using a starter at EACH of those three positions "key" defensive positions.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Sandy,

I don't think defense costs too much in cases like Everett, Hudson, Tavaras, Dustin Mohr, or Alex Cora (to name a few).

It is rather in cases of good offensive cards that defense seems to cost a lot. As if there was an interaction.

[cirills]

Yes, that's what I meant. I think Ellis and Giles cost more than I'd be willing to pay making Kent's offense a better value, whereas Tavaras (and to a lesser degree) Sullivan and Reed become the better bargains in their respective cats as well.

The "bargains" (if you will) seem to be at the lower end of the offensive spectrum (with respect to defense) while the 3's become the offensive bargains.

I just would never have necessarily went with a 3 at EACH of the 3 positions myself but now might think differently to be sure, especially in lieu of the pricing structure at the upper "offensive" end of the defensive spectrum of these positions.

And btw -- I whole-heartedly agree with your initial assesment on the 1B pricing, the most inflated overall of the set. Even at the bottom end of the pool.

Youser!!! :shock:

[MARCPELLETIER]

[quote:6ad8f6e903]I just would never have necessarily went with a 3 at EACH of the 3 positions myself but now might think differently to be sure,[/quote:6ad8f6e903]

I am not the best in English, as you know, but just how many verbs and adverbs do you have in this sentence!!! :P

[cirills]

:P :lol:

My employees tell me at work all the time (I have to talk to them on a radio often) to use [b:94e0173ba5]"10 words or less"[/b:94e0173ba5]. :roll:

It's hard for me. :?