Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Hi folks! Is it possible to have a successful team with a "3" defense at short? Would it be better to have an offensive threat at 3 or a 2 defender with no help in the lineup?? Thanks for your input!

Yes

In the right situation a 3 is okay. I've done it but have had good D at 2B & CF to compensate a little.

I have won twice with M Young at ss, both against very tough competition

Fatty has also won with a 4 (Brady Clark) in CF, setting the conventional Strat wisdom on it's head. :wink:

Still, it's definitively more difficult to win with a cf-4 than to win with a cf-2 or cf-1. The shift between cf-4 and cf-3 (much greater than any other shifts) is evident on the Strat Fielding charts and cannot be denied. Moreover, ss-4 and 2b-4 (and cf-4 to a lesser extent) are way overpriced when playing the field because their price tag are based on dh-ing, not on playing the field. I'm sure everyone remembers durantjerry's Peralta' trial team, which finished at 66-96 and a whooping 5.51 ERA despite an excellent pitching set-up for the field:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=10508

As for ss-3, 2b-3, and cf-3, their pricetags approximately estimate correctly their value on the field. The key then is the offensive contribution of your weak defender. If you plan to use a ss-3 at the 8th or 9th spot of the line-up, I say this goes totally against wisdom. A 9th hitter will see 150 less at-bats than your lead-off, even though he will play as much in defense. If your ss-3 is in the heart of the line-up, or as a lead-off, as is often the case with Young, then it makes sense to give an edge to the offensive side of the card.

That said, I still believe that there is a slight bias in the pricing system towards underestimating ss-1, cf-1, 2nd-1, although this bias has been greatly reduced over the past years.

Looking back, on the two title teams with M Young at SS, I compensated in the IF at other positions. I think I had IF's of Helton, Belliard, M Young & Figgins and Lee, Roberts, M Young & Figgins. When I posted the best record with B Clark playing CF, the rest of my team was excellent defensively. I think I had an IF of Lee, Roberts, Cabrera & Chavez. I have tried M Young with lesser defensive players in the IF and have had some success, but I have not won a title with the combo. I have had at least a couple of teams in MM with M Young at SS and Glaus at third that have been winners, but not title winners. My Jhonny P at SS team had poor defense at other positions(Utley was my 2B, Fick at C, etc.) and my team got crushed. So I guess my greatest success with defensively challenged players has been when I still was able to field a good overall defensive team while taking advantage of the added offensive contributions of one player with some defensive shortcomings.

[quote:047eb89abc="marcus wilby"]The key then is the offensive contribution of your weak defender. If you plan to use a ss-3 at the 8th or 9th spot of the line-up, I say this goes totally against wisdom. A 9th hitter will see 150 less at-bats than your lead-off...[/quote:047eb89abc]
I completely agree. [b:047eb89abc]Michael Young [/b:047eb89abc]will get around 750 PA in the leadoff spot, thus maximizing the offensive value of the card. I've also had decent results using Jeff Kent or Robinson Cano at 2B, but Young is the guy who maxes out this strategy.

A "4" in CF :shock: ...scary! :wink:

How about Alex Sanchez in CF? A 5(+1)e25. He's got an excellent offensive card. You could have Bernie Williams be your defensive sub. He is much better at 5(+4)e3. :wink:

I've got a team that's currently 71-31 in a strong division with a 4 at ss, a 4 in LF, a 3e24 at 3B, a 3(+2) at c, a 3e17 at 2b, a 3e5 in CF, a 3e3 in RF, and a 4e12 at 1B (at Petco!)...not a 1 or a 2 on the team...it was an experiment, to be sure, but it seems to be working...

so, yes, most emphatically, you can win with a 3 at ss (I do try to keep the e ratings reasonable)...look for VALUE above all else...

the key is that all nine in your lineup have high OBPs (at least .360) and some extra-base pop...and super-stud starting pitching to balance out the sloppy d...

the idea is to outscore your opponent, and anyway you can get there (offense, defense or pitching) is valid. The barometer of the game is wins and losses...

My formula is based on the math of the game, and I've tried to share it several times on the forum, but am usually shouted down by Orthodox Stratological dogma...if you want to know more, PM me and I'll be happy to discuss it with you...