What Cost for SS-1?

Discuss different strategies for any of our player sets

Moderators: Palmtana, coyote303

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

FALCON29

  • Posts: 3472
  • Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:59 am
  • Location: Toronto, Canada

What Cost for SS-1?

PostFri Nov 18, 2016 3:21 am

I'm playing in a 70s league and we're 1/3 of the way through the season. I have Rick Burleson (SS-1 e24) playing every day. He's on one of his two worst cards (1975 or 78) and is currently batting .160 with a .374 OPS.

My team is middle-of-the-pack offensively, (4th in BA & OBP, 6th in OPS, 8th in runs). With a 28-26 record I've got a 1 game lead in the weakest division.

There are a number of other decent SS available within the price range I'd have available if I dropped Burleson:
- Jim Fregosi (SS-3 e26) .733 OPS
- Rico Petrocelli (SS-3 e21) .735 OPS
- Bert Campaneris (SS-2 e22) .666 OPS
- Luis Aparicio (SS-2 e20) .672 OPS
- Chris Speier (SS-2 e25) .687 OPS
- Leo Cardenas (SS-2 e22) .663 OPS

Thoughts? Suggestions?

My personal feeling at this point is to stick with Burleson. Right now I've got about $.5M salary cap available and if later in the season I decide that I need more offence from my SS I can still afford any of the guys above, even after the FA Drop penalty goes up to 20%.
Last edited by FALCON29 on Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

paul8210

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:21 am

Re: What Cost for SS-1?

PostFri Nov 18, 2016 11:24 am

Burleson doesn't have a '73 card. Probably meant '78.

Anyway, Burleson has either 'E' or '3R' on his two weak years, so, unless, you face a lot of left-handed starters, you'd be okay sticking with Burleson. I'm guessing there's a 60% chance you'd be happier with Aparicio or Campaneris, based on potential outperformance, but, that's not a high enough probability to make a switch.
Offline

FALCON29

  • Posts: 3472
  • Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:59 am
  • Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: What Cost for SS-1?

PostFri Nov 18, 2016 12:37 pm

paul8210 wrote:Burleson doesn't have a '73 card. Probably meant '78.

Thanks, Paul. You're right, it's '75 or '78. (I was typing in the dark.)

Return to General Strategy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests