Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

If you regularly mine these boards for useful information, it's frustrating to find so many contradictions. What actually works and what actually doesn't can often be elusive to pinpoint. Unfortunately, because something is "elusive" doesn't means it's an excuse to not think at all.

Five, ten or fifteen teams isn't nearly enough information to determine much of anything, but they can serve an informational purpose maybe in the way of tendency and trend.

Surveying five completed leagues, here's what I have witnessed:

Teams With the Best Run Differential

2B: 3,3,3,2,3 = 2.8 avg
SS: 1,1,2,2,2 = 1.6 avg
CF: 2,2,1,1,2 = 1.6 avg
Run Diff: 124, 99, 82, 82, 148 = avg 107

Champs Teams

2B: 2,1,2,1,3 = 1.8 avg
SS: 1,1,3,1,2 = 1.6 avg
CF: 3,2,2,1,2 = 2.0 avg
Run Diff: 24, 88, 0, 37, 148 = 59 avg

Five Unfinished Leagues - Best Run Differential

2B: 2,2,1,3,3 = 2.4 avg
SS: 1,1,1,2,2 = 1.4 avg
CF: 2,1,1,3,1 = 1.6 avg

What do you think can be concluded?

The correct answer is "probably not much", but that doesn't make for much discussion either.

It's clear that this player set is introducing more 3 range middle defenders into the mix. It's also clear how much harder it is to score this year. ERAs are way down, and the five Champs teams averaged .700 OPS on offense!

What stands out to me so far at least is that teams that win rings play 2B ranges closer to 2, while runner-up teams play 2B ranges closer to 3.

Some rhetoric for thought...

Is the importance of middle defense in a seven game series more important than you might have imagined?

Is playing a 3 at 2B in the search for additional offense (in a difficult scoring environment) a siren song?

Do we need to rethink maximizing run differential in deference to adding more defense?

Walker or Dozier? Hmmm.

Do five or ten teams amount to a spit in the ocean, or is it indicative of expected future results?

Discuss.

J-Pav wrote:What stands out to me so far at least is that teams that win rings play 2B ranges closer to 2, while runner-up teams play 2B ranges closer to 3.

What data did you use to come to that conclusion and how did you come to it? Also, you are currently using (3)SS Danny Santana at Ss on this team:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1402634

Doesn't that go against your claimed findings on 3's at SS?

Well, until that team wins the ring...

I guess it's TBD, right?

What I do or don't do personally has no bearing on any of this. I may believe I am maximizing my run diff in such a way to offset middle defense. But it's just an opinion and I could be as wrong as anyone. Maybe I actually SHOULD have traded some bat for defense here. That's exactly the point.

But if you only try things one way, you may be missing a bigger picture.

J-Pav wrote:Well, until that team wins the ring...

I guess it's TBD, right?

So, you have no actual proof teams with 3's tend to be runner-ups and teams with 2's tend to win the rings. Teams with 3's in the middle infield have won the ring, though. So, at least we know they can.

What I do or don't do personally has no bearing on any of this.

It has absolute bearing on how much you, personally, buy into your supposed skepticism about using 3 middle infielders. Apparently you don't buy into it completely.

I may believe I am maximizing my run diff in such a way to offset middle defense. But it's just an opinion and I could be as wrong as anyone. Maybe I actually SHOULD have traded some bat for defense here. That's exactly the point.

I think your strategy with Santana is smart, and it is obviously succeeding. So, I don't see why you would think you made a mistake. However, it also shows using 3 middle infielders is a viable strategy.

But if you only try things one way, you may be missing a bigger picture.

I'm with you here, too. That's why we can both agree saying, "don't use 3 middle infielders" is the wrong approach. Your using Santana at Ss shows you agree.

This is way too cumbersome to deal with. Your explanations of my words are completely incorrect. I don't know if comes from faulty logic or it's rooted in some other handicap.

If you want to go one at a time, I'll carry you for a couple rounds.

What's the main problem, in your opinion?

My expectations of your words were perfectly correct, as was my logic. The fact you can't show otherwise helps prove that. If you have a problem or problems with my last post, then point them out. Otherwise, I'm fine with letting my statements stand.

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.

l.strether wrote:My expectations of your words were perfectly correct...

This is all anyone needs to see when it comes to your "logic". You're bringing your sock puppet show to the thread so you can have conversations with yourself.

Have at it.

Thx Big!

So, you can't show anything wrong with my posts. Thanks for making that clear. And if you can show my above statement was illogical in any way, please do. Until then, you've just made another hollow statement.

And a "sockpuppet" is a second account. Since you and I were having a discussion, you messed that one up, too...

Yep, debunked again.