Page 1 of 1
which is better: range or arm in the OF?
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:51 pmby mosesbrown
In BTT80s my options are playing:
LF Rice 3(0) + CF E Davis 1(-3) + RF Gwynn 1(-2) OR
LF E Davis 1(-3) + CF Gwynn 2(-2) + RF Barfield 2(-4)
The BTT80s being loaded with speed, I'm wondering which is the better option? I suppose I could mix and match depending on the opponent, but am curious to know how others feel about trading range for arm or vice versa.
(Offensively it doesn't matter, as Rice or Barfield will DH)
Re: which is better: range or arm in the OF?
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:49 pmby andycummings65
I like the first option
Re: which is better: range or arm in the OF?
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:49 pmby rhonda1957
i would stay with the ones in the OF, you will give up more hits than runners taking extra bases. I have the same issue this year with Marte, Parra, Braun and Denorfia.
I go Marte LF Denorfia CF Parra RF and DH Braun
Re: which is better: range or arm in the OF?
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:48 pmby dgrish
RANGE is more important then ARM. But you do want to put a STRONG ARM in RF to discourage those advancing runners from heading to 3b on Singles.
Re: which is better: range or arm in the OF?
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:12 pmby mosesbrown
Thanks for the input. It is a pain playing a guy at his 2 position when he's a 1 elsewhere. I started the season playing R Henderson in CF, where he's a 2(0) rather than his 1 in LF, but only because I had to play Rice in the field. I'll stick with the first option, which is what I've been using, and I sub Gerald Young 2(-1) in for Rice late in the game.
Re: which is better: range or arm in the OF?
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:22 pmby mosesbrown
It may be my imagination, but I feel like with my past teams a 0 arm in LF or CF has been a big disadvantage. Maybe it's because I've usually played the 70s, where there are 43 1-17 runners . . . but I won't even consider a +1 arm even in LF. Again, probably my imagination. . . .