what does this mean / imply?

Randy got worked up over my preferring Walker to Dozier at the same price? That wasn't even my primary argument. And nothing was settled. You can't "settle" whether an overpriced 2b card managers rarely drafted is superior (at the same price) to an excellent (likely underpriced) 2b card usually drafted high. There are too many variables involved, including ballparks, to definitely determine it. If you can do so, Marc, i would stand corrected.

I will, though provide this stat sheet for one of my leagues showing Walker's substantially superior stats to Dozier's. So, Walker can and could significantly outproduce Dozier. Walker hit 33 Hrs with 78 Rbis and a .254/.322/.501 Dozier had a paltry .195/.300/.356 line with only 22 hrs and 56 rbis. That doesn't quite "settle" Dozier as the better card, even with the defense:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/le ... 7/2b/ops/1

Also, with 5000 managers in this league, most who haven't spoken, we certainly can't "settle" whether I'm the only one in all of SOM who would prefer Walker at the same price. We managers, including experienced ones, do all have our particular preferences. So Bombers having problems with my preference for Walker is fine with me.

Also, Marc, I wouldn't completely write off using 3s with non-low es. As I posted to J-Pav, here are 4 of my first 8 teams this year that made the finals with middle infielders with middle-high e ratings:

Negron at 2b and Peralta at SS
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1396900
Rendon at 2b
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1397202
Castro at SS
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1398783
Reyes at SS
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1398946

And here are 3 (of my 25) championship teams with middle-high e ratings:

My 2011 championship team with Jason Kipnis at 2b
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/386123
My 2013 championship team with Hanley Ramirez at Ss
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1128412
My 90's championship team with Jeff Kent at 2b
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1386346

So, while it isn't my preferred strategy by any means, utilizing solid-excellent mid-high 3 middle infielders is definitely a viable means to putting together a winning, and even a championship, team.

There are so many errors in logic here that it's hard to summarize.

But, simply, if three out of 25 teams did it one way, and 22 out of 25 did it another, then doesn't it make statistical sense to emulate the way that worked for the 22 out of 25 and not the other way around??

I don't understand why you think one rainy day in Hawaii makes Hawaii a rainy place. Finding outliers is fun, but it doesn't change, refute, defy (or whatever) the long established trends.

There are so many errors in logic here that it's hard to summarize.

No there aren't, J-Pav, and you haven't shown me one.

But, simply, if three out of 25 teams did it one way, and 22 out of 25 did it another, then doesn't it make statistical sense to emulate the way that worked for the 22 out of 25 and not the other way around??

I guess you didn't read my post. I clearly said this:

So, while it isn't my preferred strategy by any means, utilizing solid-excellent mid-high 3 middle infielders is definitely a viable means to putting together a winning, and even a championship, team.

So, I'm not advocating going out of one's way to use 3 middle infielders. I simply said it is a viable alternative strategy, and I showed one can win that way. My 3 out of 25 championships show that. I do usually avoid 3 middle infielders, as the majority of my championships show. However, my 3 championships with them show one can win with them.

I'm actually surprised, J-Pav, that you would be so against using unorthodox approaches. You said so much on this thread on trying new things, but now you're saying we should only "emulate" the proven successful ones. That's disappointing.

I don't understand why you think one rainy day in Hawaii makes Hawaii a rainy place. Finding outliers is fun, but it doesn't change, refute, defy (or whatever) the long established trends.

Again this metaphor doesn't apply...and I gave 7 "rainy days," not one. I never said using 3 middle infielders was the way to go. I made it clear its not my preferred strategy. I just showed that one can win and win championships with it, and it doesn't have to be avoided. I'm sorry that bothers you so.

So, the conventional wisdom against 3's up the middle is definitely flawed.

You really enjoy having it both ways. You win conventionally, and you also win unconventionally. When you win unconventionally, conventional wisdom is flawed. But that's not how you usually do it. Usually you're conventional.

That's awesome.

There's a nice Wikipedia entry on statistical significance. Have the stats guy at school explain to you how that all works.

Yes, I do like having it both ways. I like to win conventionally and unconventionally; who doesn't? And my saying conventional wisdom is flawed is very different from saying it is absolutely wrong.

And thank you for the Wikipedia suggestion. I'll be sure to check it out.

I make heavy use of Dean Carrano's article which gives defensive ratings for all positions, except for Cs and Ps. His chart rates a 2e24 2B equal to a 3e4 and a 1e41 (with roughly equal changes per increase in errors). His rating for SS "equality" is 2e26, 3e4 and 1e46.

I make heavy use of Dean Carrano's article which gives defensive ratings for all positions, except for Cs and Ps. His chart rates a 2e24 2B equal to a 3e4 and a 1e41 (with roughly equal changes per increase in errors). His rating for SS "equality" is 2e26, 3e4 and 1e46.

Ditto...I use the same chart. A 3e1 beats a 1e40 at every position

I looked at most links, and I must say that you're using your bench and your players in a very clever way, so I feel that you are tampering off the negative value of your average infielders.

A few comments

That doesn't quite "settle" Dozier as the better card, even with the defense:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/le ... 7/2b/ops/1

The Walker vs Dozier comparaison is a tough one to make: Walker played in Coors, Dozier is Turner, so obviously Walker's stats are boosted. Walker mostly played exclusively vs rhp, thereby boosting his stats again in terms of on-base, slugging, vs Dozier playing full time. And perhaps most importantly, from what I can see with the naked eye, Walker has never been injured more than a few days here and there. Good break. Furthermore, the owner who had Dozier didn't take advantage of the fact that Dozier can't be injured more than the rest of the game. This owner also owned Longoria who has no injury rating, and despite the guarantee of having Dozier and Longoria for 162 games, he wasted over one million on Flaherty, who finished with a big 14 at-bats for the whole season. This owner could have instead use this million to grab a much better platoon in the outfield, or maximize his pitching staff.

So bottom-line, the combo Walker/Tolleson in Coors was probably a better decision than the use of Dozier/Flaherty in Turner. So you had the cleverness to maximize Walker's value to its full extent, and you got the chance to avoid a big injury...but Ithink there are better ways to use Dozier.

Negron at 2b and Peralta at SS
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1396900
Castro at SS
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1398783

Negron, Castro and Peralta don't have high e--- in my book, anything below 20 is acceptable.

Rendon at 2b
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1397202

It's obvious that Rendon is a better purchase at third-base---the question is whether there were better options for Miller at second base. I believe there probably was. Moreover, if you look at the defensive stats, Rendon didn't make 52 plays, which is far more than what I can live with. Take off 47 singles and 3 doubles out of his offensive performance, and you get a stats line much worse than Dozier's in the first link (.180 on-base, .265 on-base) without the double-plays that come with Dozier's 1-rating. So in this case, I believe that you won despite Rendon's performance.

Reyes at SS
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1398946

50 plays Reyes didn't make....adjusted offensive performance: .174 batting average, .235 on-base---terrible stats, if you ask me. With a better player, who knows how many wins you could have racked up more than the 86 wins you got.

I looked at most links, and I must say that you're using your bench and your players in a very clever way, so I feel that you are tampering off the negative value of your average infielders.

So bottom-line, the combo Walker/Tolleson in Coors was probably a better decision than the use of Dozier/Flaherty in Turner. So you had the cleverness to maximize Walker's value to its full extent, and you got the chance to avoid a big injury

Thanks to both. I'm a Tolleson fan, by the way, and feel he is one of the more useful and unsung cards in the set.

Negron, Castro and Peralta don't have high e--- in my book, anything below 20 is acceptable.

I agree, but when you used Walker as your sole example of whom you would use, I assumed these players' ratings would be high to you. However, at least we definitely agree they are all viable options for the middle infield.

It's obvious that Rendon is a better purchase at third-base---the question is whether there were better options for Miller at second base. I believe there probably was. So in this case, I believe that you won despite Rendon's performance.

Of course, Rendon is a better option at 3b. However, Walker and Cano (whom I'm not crazy about) were gone in the live draft, and going with Rendon allowed me to play Turner at 3b and Negron at Ss, both did excellent offensively. And Rendon definitely contributed. He hit 21 Hrs with 86 Rbis and 95 runs and 8Sbs at the 2b position. So, he, Turner, and Negron were all vital to my team winning 92 games and making the finals.

50 plays Reyes didn't make....adjusted offensive performance: .174 batting average, .235 on-base---terrible stats, if you ask me. With a better player, who knows how many wins you could have racked up more than the 86 wins you got.

No, Reyes didn't do well. And while I've seen him do better, I won't advocate for him as I would Rendon at 2b. However, I had few shortstop options, and taking the gamble at Reyes' low cost allowed me to afford Martin, McCutchen, Marte, Harrison and some solid starters. That team, which Reyes enabled and did contribute to, made it to game 7 of the Finals. Since most managers would take that finish, its' safe to say you can do quite well with Reyes at SS.

How about this 2B comparison? I'm thinking pretty much every starting 2b above Herrera is usable with the exception of a few players like Murphy that should be moved to 3B.

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/le ... 1/2b/ops/1