Re: Orioles additions
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:59 am
How about the Harry Rice card instead of Zarilla. Disqualified from the high caps only because he has a pesky catcher rating.
Community forum
http://forum-365.strat-o-matic.com/community/
http://forum-365.strat-o-matic.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=640742
george barnard wrote:Rosie2167 wrote:After reviewing all the posts here's what I'm proposing we go with for the 3 spots...
Roberto Alomar 1996 BAL 2B 3 17 328/411/527/938 MVP-20 GG SS New Franch
Chris Davis 2013 BAL 1B 0 10 286/370/634/1004 6R MVP-3
Buddy Groom 2002 BAL RP 0 14 0.9whip 6.97k/9
Harry Howell 1904 SLB SP* 0 13 1.048whip 2.19era 299IN
Grant* Jackson 1973 BAL RP 1 18 0.97whip 1.90era 80IP 5R New Franch
John Lowenstein 1982 BAL LF RF 1 16 BC 320/415/602/1017 (3+1e0) 9R
Nels Potter 1945 SLB SP* 0 14 15-11 1.097whip 21CG 2.47era
Al Zarilla 1948 SLB OF 1 10 MBC 329/389/482/871 MVP-18 New Franch
I also really like Bumbry but there's not consensus on the best yr to nominate. Any major issues with the 8 above?
Britton is an obvious stud but 2016 is just too recent for me.
As much as I think that the Zarilla card would be a great add (I did nominate it at some point here), I think the Judnich card might be better. It probably comes down to Zarilla's defense. Anybody with a card reader who can give us the '48 Zarilla defensive ratings? We know that Judnich is a 2(-1) across the outfield. Thanks.
george barnard wrote:Oriole possibilities for pitchers:
......
1971 Jim Palmer 20-9 2.68/1.195
1973 Jim Palmer 22-9, 1 save 2.40/1.141
1976 Jim Palmer 22-13 2.51/1.076
1977 Jim Palmer 20-11 2.91/1.135 (is Palmer doomed never to perform well in ATG? '73 & '76 Cy Young winner)
.......
Rosie2167 wrote:Is Judnich really a 1R? Looking at his splits it seems much heavier vR
1942 Wally Judnich L/1R All OF-2(-1)4 313/413/499 Good add to Pre-war SLB
Of note, he did lose his best years to WW2.
I don't have a problem adding Judnich in place of Zarilla and adding Rice and Bumbry '80. At the end the vote dictates.
Rosie2167 wrote:In looking closer at Palmer it seems he just doesn't translate well to SOM. The two years that might add some girth to his virtual game are 69 and 76. 69 is listed in the 70s mystery set and is pretty close to his 72 card. Anyone else with an opinion?