Middle Defense: Another Tutorial

Also, do not join an auto league of newbies.

I don't think there are newbies anymore, in Mystery card leagues at least. Whenever I join these leagues I see the same guys over and over again.

I like geekors method, btw.

Playing the board game will help you until your CF-er can't throw out that runner at the plate in the 9th inning of a big game and therefor you decide that having a CF-er with an arm is more important than it is, or more important than range...

Also, I have seen a lot of ignorance from these face to face tournament players (that never play full seasons or on-line games). Some think alternating guys with good 1 columns (as opposed to having them back to back) is important when in reality it does not matter at all.. Also the guys who never play on-line are not nearly as good at figuring out which cards are more valuable in some cases, where as on-line players have the salaries to help them understand.

Furthermore, could someone explain to me why they think middle infield defense is more important in a shortened season tournament mode than over a full season?

Some think alternating guys with good 1 columns (as opposed to having them back to back) is important when in reality it does not matter at all.

What data did you use to come to that conclusion? Nevermind. jk.

Richard
From a pure math standpoint, you are correct. I believe that extreme strengths (1 middle infielder, lights out reliever, tons of BP hr's in a HR park, B hit and run in a pitchers park) Are more likely to remain stable in a small sample size. I tend to go for batters with more hits and less walks in a tourney. I call this Gurerro/Mattingly. It was an 85 tourney and I had both. Guererro was a bust, hitting about .109 and always failing to drive in the big run when needed. Mattingly hit better and despite a lower OBP lead my team in RBI. Just one example I know, but I will always believe in a 16-18 game season you have to go for strengths

To Clowntime: I agree with you regarding losing teams, but only to an extent. Yes, when you divide $30 mil over 10 pitchers and $50 mil over 14 hitters, it will kinda sorta all look the same. But maybe not. There will be no $40 mil pitching staffs, no teams with three $10 mil fielders, etc. Middle defense will stand out. And misspent salary is not only mid-season salary-dumping. It's a $2 mil vs RHP/$5 mil vs LHP platoon. It's a $6 mil closer getting 20 innings with cheapy starters carrying the bulk of the innings. It's an overpaid/under-utilized backup. Hindsight makes it easier, but it can be discernible preseason.

OK. I was referring only to the 8-7-6-5-4-3-2 theory, nothing else. Again, I thnk it's a statistical inevitability for good and bad teams to average out to something resembling this at the beginning of the season, and that the deviation from it by bad teams at ends of seasons is because bad teams experiment with replacing players far more often, once they are out of the running, while teams in the race maintain stautus quo. I'm not referring to any other aspect of salary stracture than the 87654321 idea.

I suspect this also applies to some other bad-team analysis, but not all; the factor of end-season vs. opening day has to be considered when weighing some of the bad-team analysis. But I'm not specifying anything except the 87654321 theory.

Agreed. If it helps, your point was one of my earliest concerns about salary structure. The idea/concept came to me when preparing for one of my early tour leagues. I had a handful of rosters printed out from the teams of the better managers. Laid side by side, the $9-8-7-6 concept literally jumped off the pages at me. At the time, I wasn't concerned about how not to do it, I was just trying to get past the how do I do it.

Before the first pitch, we all expect to go 162-0 (well, at least I do!) So what's wrong with a team pre-season can be difficult to spot, because, as you said, so much appears the same. But it's funny how a roster can catch my eye and I can (usually) tell at a glance, yeah, this guy has zero chance.