what does this mean / imply?

You guys are right 3's are horrible. Never ever draft one. Ever. Especially Walker. He's a bum. Draft Dozier instead.

Fun With Conventional Wisdom

1. HAL sucks with platoons and pinch hitting.
2. Do not use Very Aggressive runner settings.
3. HAL steals home and third too much.
4. Don't use 3s up the middle.
5. You need a big bat to stir the drink.
6. A $0.53 backup has no place in the everyday lineup.
7. Don't overspend on pitching, $32 mil is plenty.
8. Catcher's who are 4s with a +1 arm are probably good to avoid.
9. High injury guys are also good to avoid.
10. Sit high injury guys prior to beginning the playoffs.

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1391740

I had fun reading this. Not sure I agree that "conventional wisdom" had it that we shouldn't overspend on pitching. It's more your own secret formula which insisted on this---and you probably remember well how I disagreed with that part of your formula. I've seen too many teams with 35-40 M spent on pitching succesful to support your conventional claim. There's surely an upper limit---you should probably not spend high money on both a set-up And a closer if you're spending 35m on your starting pitchers---but that upper limit is certainly higher than 32m.

About your first claim: Hal does suck with pinch-hitting, but this shouldn't prevent someone against going with platoons. Since the gold old days of cristano, we know that teams with lots of platooning can overperform. There's moreover some synergy to combine platooning with high-injury ratings.

About injury-prone players, there are so many bargains in that category, I have no clue why people are so careful about using them.

As for the other claims, I've written in the past that in some contexts, 3-rated infielders are the best buys--Walker in power stadiums---SOM has never been better to balance defense and offense in their ratings, in my humble opinion. But I still find that 1-rated often make more sense--you need hitters in the #8-#9 spots who will have 150 less at-bats than your leadoff, so it makes sense to put a guy whose salary will be more on defense than on offense.

So bottom-line, I stand on the side of conventional wisdom on 3 claims, so I guess this makes me more iconoclast than most managers. I do believe in claim #3, but I agree with you that going conservative might be overshooting. I do believe that a gm maximizes his line-up by chasing at least one big bat and putting it at the clean-up spot. Can you win without one? Of course, just like you can win by mixing *Sp/non SP--- but not optimal--might cost you the 2 wins you lack to make the playoffs one given season. And finally, I do believe you should sit your injury-prone players beofre playoffs begin if you wish to win the finals---other than laziness or missing the monday cut to adjust the lineups, I can't see why one coach shouldn't.

You guys are right 3's are horrible. Never ever draft one. Ever. Especially Walker. He's a bum. Draft Dozier instead.

I liked this. There is definitely a particular disparity between quality 3 middle infielders and quality 1-2 middle infielders this season, and nothing better exemplifies this than Walker and Dozier.

As for the other claims, I've written in the past that in some contexts, 3-rated infielders are the best buys--Walker in power stadiums---SOM has never been better to balance defense and offense in their ratings, in my humble opinion. But I still find that 1-rated often make more sense--you need hitters in the #8-#9 spots who will have 150 less at-bats than your leadoff, so it makes sense to put a guy whose salary will be more on defense than on offense.

So bottom-line, I stand on the side of conventional wisdom on 3 claims, so I guess this makes me more iconoclast than most managers.

Thanks for chiming in, Marc. You are definitely a stats/math guy, and I'm a Humanities guy; so, I know we take different approaches to evaluating things. However, I was hoping you would clarify what you meant by "standing on conventional wisdom on 3s" and how that would reflect when and how much it is ok to use 3's. As you noted above, and I agreed with earlier, 3-rated infielders are often the best buys and are particularly good buys in hitter's parks. So, also, how do you stand on that conventional wisdom in hitters' parks?

I completely agree with your points about hitter' parks and best buys, and its why I've sometimes used 3-infielders and have been substantially successful when I have. Like you and others, I would obviously prefer 1s or 2s who can hit, but if none are available, and since I usually prefer hitters or offensive weighted parks, I have gone the 3 route. As I mentioned to J-Pav, this has led to 4 finals appearances in my first 8 teams this seasons, and to 4 championships (of my total 25).

This leads me to two final questions. When do you believe contrasting evidence reveals the flaws in "conventional wisdom"? As I, see it, someone winning 4 championships with 3 middle infielders and making the finals in 4 out of their first 8 seasons shows a substantial flaw in a particular aspect of the "conventional wisdom" on 3s--that part that incorrectly says "avoid 3 middle infielders." As I said earlier, 1s and 2s are better, but my experience--and similar experiences of other managers--shows going with 3 middle infielders, particularly in hitters' parks is a viable winning strategy.

My second question is can we actually determine the difference in quality between a team that wins the finals and a team that makes the finals but loses? J-Pav implied that difference could be isolated to one team using 3 middle infielders and another not, even though I have won championships with 3s infielders against teams with 1s and/or 2s. So, do you think that difference can be determined and can it actually be reduced to one particular position choice?

You guys are right 3's are horrible. Never ever draft one. Ever. Especially Walker. He's a bum. Draft Dozier instead.

I think Dozier is a better base-runner too so you can be running aggressively.

You guys are right 3's are horrible. Never ever draft one. Ever. Especially Walker. He's a bum. Draft Dozier instead.

I think Dozier is a better base-runner too so you can be running aggressively.

Gravy, I believe Derrick was being ironic. Considering Walker is--at least in my drafts--usually taken in the first 6 picks, and Dozier is usually left un-drafted, many managers would prefer the 5.5m Walker to the 8.3m Dozier. I, and others, would prefer Walker at even the same cost.

I, and others, would prefer Walker at even the same cost.

Can you tell us who these other owners are that you have polled that would still take Walker over Dozier if both cost 5.46M?

There is a big difference between a 1 and a 3 at 2B. Also Walker is a 15 game injury risk while Dozier is only a rest of game max injury. Dozier gets on base on 5 of the 6 seven rolls on his card and is one of the better base runners/stealers for the position. It is not like Dozier is a weak hitter either as he is an N both ways with 6 and 4 BP HR chances on his card.

If you said most people would take Walker over Dozier at their current price levels I would agree but saying that you and some group of owners you have polled all would take Walker over Dozier if both priced the same, that is hard to believe from any experienced SOM manager.

I liked this. There is definitely a particular disparity between quality 3 middle infielders and quality 1-2 middle infielders this season, and nothing better exemplifies this than Walker and Dozier.

To exemplify this, I thought I'd provide a list of the solid 3 middle infielders who are all mostly good deals, particularly for hitters' parks (only middle infield positions listed):

Anthony Rendon--2b
Kristopher Negron--2b, SS
Neil Walker, 2b
Jhony Peralta, SS
Jose Reyes, SS
Starlin Castro, SS
Jose Altuve, 2b (a bit pricey, particularly in hitters parks)
Josh Harrison, 2b (also a bit pricey, but solid)

I'm not a SOM archivist by any means, but I can't remember such a solid group of 3 middle infielders, particularly in a season significantly lacking excellent offensive 1-2 middle infielders. There is no '12 Ian Desmond or '11 J.J. Hardy in this set.

I don't believe HAL is programmed to calculate a change in strategy when it is a championship series and that you don't really want to be extra aggressive when you have a 3 run lead. He doesn't know you don't want to hit and run in a certain situation, he just knows your hitter is programmed to hit and run more. He doesn't take in consideration if he pulls a good reliever for your LH specialist there are 5 righties coming up behind him and there are no good relievers left on your bench once the specialist faces his one batter. Your settings are your settings and he can only use the logic that is programmed. We all know how many nuances there are in managing a game and there is no way to program it all and think 3 moves ahead like a human. We would need the computer that plays jeopardy, whatever his name is.

I am also assuming it does not delay a defensive replacement one inning because Greenberg is due to hit in the bottom of the 8th. While most Managers might very well make the decision to do so.

I'm sincerely asking this, Gene, but which post exactly are you addressing?