Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

This set is interesting. I watch a lot of baseball and my team is full of guys I've never heard of because I like their value even with low AB's. I know its too early to ask because you want to keep them a secret for as long as you can, but who do you think are some of the sleepers in this set?

ahhhh...mmmm....well

with a total of 6 games played

I would say there are no sleepers.....but there does seem to be value if you want to build a certain style team.

Check back in about 75 more games

Yeah I guess we need to see it play out for a season just pumped about the new season. More or less just wanted to hear thoughts on players that you think may have value.

Kted101 wrote:Yeah I guess we need to see it play out for a season just pumped about the new season. More or less just wanted to hear thoughts on players that you think may have value.

I'm keeping that list under lock and key so I can grab them in autodrafts until others start catching on

keyzick wrote:

Kted101 wrote:Yeah I guess we need to see it play out for a season just pumped about the new season. More or less just wanted to hear thoughts on players that you think may have value.

I'm keeping that list under lock and key so I can grab them in autodrafts until others start catching on

I know that feeling. I need a few leagues, not just 75 games, to determine who is a sleeper myself.

think this set may be more about evaluating the expensive hitters. 10-12 mil for one player in an 80mil league is really high unless you're getting Bond's like numbers. don't see it happening in this set? for the sleepers the injury bug is the problem more than the performance.

As far as evaluating $10-$12 million hitters goes, how is that issue unique to 2014, didn't the same dynamics exist in the 2013 set. I would disagree that you need bonds numbers at that price, what you need is relative offensive value compared to overall offense in the 2014 set. So if offense is suppressed you get less total offense for the price this year, but equal relative value. As an extreme point of reference look at the 69 game and the offense per salary you get there.

childsmwc wrote:As far as evaluating $10-$12 million hitters goes, how is that issue unique to 2014, didn't the same dynamics exist in the 2013 set. I would disagree that you need bonds numbers at that price, what you need is relative offensive value compared to overall offense in the 2014 set. So if offense is suppressed you get less total offense for the price this year, but equal relative value. As an extreme point of reference look at the 69 game and the offense per salary you get there.

You're right about relative offense as compared to overall offense in the 2014 set. However, that doesn't settle the issue. You also have to compare the 10 mil-12 mil cards to the various individual cheaper cards that provide similar or comparative offensive production. In other words, are there enough cheaper cards providing more production per dollar paid than the "mega-cards" to make buying those mega-cards a bad decision. If those cards actually did have Bonds numbers, that decision would become more complicated, so it's not entirely irrelevant to the purchaser's decision.

I think Reed Johnson is worth a lot more than 0.69m if used in a platoon at DH or LF, especially in a singles/not-homers park (and in non-DH league also good as PH when a starting RHP is relieved by a LHP)

against LHP -- 37.25 OB chances, 6.8 extra base chances, 6 clutch chances, power-N

poor but not a catastrophe as a fielder in left, and inj-1 (but under 600 PA)

and he passes the savings on to you! (to spend elsewhere)

It seems to me that they let a lot more "fluke" like seasons into the set. Maybe I haven't done the 2013 set in a while so I may be wrong, but there are quite a few guys with only 200 or so at bats for big money in this set.