Middle Defense: Another Tutorial

J-Pav, I was going to congratulate you on another interesting thread, but on reflection I think you are the troll this time! You set the bait and waited under the bridge. Like a good troll should.

Seriously though, I think 3's up the middle are more useful now than they used to be. But if you've ever played F2F Strat-O with that fielding chart in your hand, you know how painful 3's and 4's can be at 2B and SS.

Of course, Santana, like the other 3s commonly mentioned bring high ceiling offense numbers and a relatively high payroll cost. The players become more suspect down the line. For example has anyone won using Betts at 2b or CF?

Personally, I don't like going below a 2 for middle defense, but have used Santana as well. Didn't draft him, but acquired him in a preseason trade whose main players were McCutcheon for Kersaw. So I used Santana at CF then moved him to SS after Tulo got hurt for 15 games in game 140 (what luck!) who I dropped to pick up Gomez for CF. With Phillips at 2B I had no worries about Santana. I lost in the finals to a team with Dozier at 2B.

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/te ... ng/1398690

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1398625

From my perspective, based on the extremely small sample provided, I thought it was interesting that four out of five best run diff teams failed to win rings. Only geekor's +148 run diff team did both.

What if at the end of the season we look back and discover that when it comes to winning rings the best route was thru middle defense? Maybe you only need x amount of run diff and not league leading run diff? Maybe the solution can be found in something else.

My Santana at SS team was built completely independent of defense. I am trying to isolate another variable and so far it is working out. If I win a ring, I can maybe draw a conclusion. If I don't, I can draw a different conclusion, no?

Winning with 3s up the middle is definitely possible, however, for all you confused new managers out there, if history is any guide - it's definitely a path less traveled. The goal is to win rings. If the goal is to build runner-up teams, ask one of the other managers about that.

For example has anyone won using Betts at 2b or CF?...I lost in the finals to a team with Dozier at 2B.

Very pertinent. Just like knowing sound fundamentals going in, asking and seeing that info gets added to the big picture, and helps answer the question: What do I need to do to win a seven game Finals series?

This is much different than: What do I need to do to win my division? or, What do I need to do to reach the playoffs?

Food for thought, anyway.

Winning with 3s up the middle is definitely possible, however, for all you confused new managers out there, if history is any guide - it's definitely a path less traveled. The goal is to win rings. If the goal is to build runner-up teams, ask one of the other managers about that.

As we agreed before, you have no substantial data determining using 3 middle infielders will be the difference between winning a ring and making the finals, even though making the finals is a substantial achievement. Until you do, your saying using 3's instead of 2's in the middle infield will just (or mostly) provide runners-up is pure speculation.

And, as I've shown in other threads, my goal is to win rings as well...and sometimes I win them with 3's in the middle:

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

Over in Valen's Castro thread, someone wants to know if using a calculator is an unfair advantage over using an abacus. You should head on back over there.

That was a nonsense statement that didn't address my post at all. Again, it's clear you can't address or counter what I posted, as I countered your post. if you ever think you actually can, feel free to try.

You totally debunked me already. Your work here is done. Thanks for the discourse.

I think, as J-Pav has shown, that the default should be at least a 2 at CF, SS and 2B. If you're going to do something differently then you have to think through the implications. Can you balance the defense elsewhere? For instance, a 2,3,3,3 at SS,3b,1b, p is the same as a 3,2,2,2. Is your home park Fenway and you're already adding a bunch of base runners or do you have a low OB park? Elite vs a more ordinary pitching staff that is going to have trouble handling the extra runners? Maybe it is more viable in the 60 million no DH league in the tournament where offense is depressed. If you could calculate how many runs playing a 3 costs you it would be thing, but it's hard to know when poor defense puts you over a breaking point. Anyway, I think there is a differential cost for employing a 2b,SS based on a number of different factors that are difficult to quantify. Playing a 3 with an ordinary pitching staff at Coors is probably going to cost significantly more runs than with an elite pitching squad in a pitcher's park. I think as offense goes down in general in MLB it might become safer to play a 3 in Strat.

So if you get a 3 and it does not put you over a breaking point then the poor defense can be balanced or even outweighed by the additional offense. Of course that would be the calculation--why else would you do it. But J-Pav's extensive review of championships provides pretty good evidence that most owners when using 3s at SS and 2B our putting too much stress on their pitching staff, such that the defensive cost significantly exceeds the additional offense. Possibly that is changing a bit with overall offense getting weaker.

So,yeah, you can win with 3s at 2b and SS but it has to be carefully thought out.

So,yeah, you can win with 3s at 2b and SS but it has to be carefully thought out.

J-Pav hasn't shown 2s should be the default at 2b,ss, and Cf. He just said so, and it happens to be true. And I completely agree with your final statement. 3's in the middle infield do demand the right surrounding team, appropriate park, and right situation.

He just said so, and it happens to be true.

Yes, thank you!

No problem. I definitely don't disagree with everything you said.