8/29/2013 1:03 PM
FWIW, I had two A/S that year.   Wood and a RP.   Wood also won the SS at SS.   That's it.
8/29/2013 1:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I had two A/S that year.   Wood and a RP.   Wood also won the SS at SS.   That's it.
On that team....WOOD.

A guys who gives you 162 games at SS with 13 + plays and a silver slugger bat. That is top 10 value. You do not need a team of Woods to win, as we agree on.
8/29/2013 1:21 PM
.836 OPS, which lead the team, is a stud?

Seems you're really expanding the parameters of "stud" after claiming Gandarillas didn't cut the mustard. 
8/29/2013 1:45 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
.836 OPS, which lead the team, is a stud?

Seems you're really expanding the parameters of "stud" after claiming Gandarillas didn't cut the mustard. 
Mike, you are getting an .836 OPS out of a defensive player you would normally be lucky to get .600... he is a star, and a player you would never have a chance at getting in the back half of a draft (and probably not any later than 8).
8/29/2013 1:56 PM
It's still .836 and it's still a team leading .836.    Stud?   Really?
8/29/2013 2:01 PM
Here, I'll solve the mystery.   We scored 55 runs less than the league average but was 4th in ERA despite my W leaders having 16, 14 and 13 wins(only ones in double digits).    But we had a very good fielding team and 87/17 +/- plays.     There were no studs on the team but 25(really more because of roster expansion) players had a definite role to fill.    It was just a well-balanced team.
8/29/2013 2:43 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Here, I'll solve the mystery.   We scored 55 runs less than the league average but was 4th in ERA despite my W leaders having 16, 14 and 13 wins(only ones in double digits).    But we had a very good fielding team and 87/17 +/- plays.     There were no studs on the team but 25(really more because of roster expansion) players had a definite role to fill.    It was just a well-balanced team.
You seem to be defining a .950+ (or whatever number you want to choose) OPS guy as the only possible stud.... Wood would be considered a stud by almost anyone that knows HBD for the fact that he gives you an .836 OPS with plus fielding at the most important position on the field.  That kind of defense would normally be accompanied by a by an OPS of at least .200 less (probably more). 
8/29/2013 2:44 PM
He was also the 4th pick in the draft... how late in the draft do you think you could possibly reach to replace his overall production for your team?
8/29/2013 2:45 PM
My point all along has been that Gandarillas is a stud(which USF denied).    I think Wood is a stud also.     But, if you claim Gandarillas is a role player, pretty much everybody on all my teams are nothing but role players.
8/29/2013 2:49 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
My point all along has been that Gandarillas is a stud(which USF denied).    I think Wood is a stud also.     But, if you claim Gandarillas is a role player, pretty much everybody on all my teams are nothing but role players.
Oh I agree that Gandarillas is much better than a role player, but your team is constructed pretty close to what USF is saying... the left side of your infield were the 2nd & 4th picks in the draft and your 1B was 5th... you had some studs on that team that you could not have gotten late in the draft.
8/29/2013 3:22 PM (edited)
Posted by kcden on 8/29/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
My point all along has been that Gandarillas is a stud(which USF denied).    I think Wood is a stud also.     But, if you claim Gandarillas is a role player, pretty much everybody on all my teams are nothing but role players.
Oh I agree that Gandarillas is much better than a role player, but your team is constructed pretty close to what USF is saying... the left side of your infield were the 2nd & 4th picks in the draft and your 1B was 5th... you had some studs on that team that you could not have gotten late in the draft.
Mike is taking his anti tanking stance to the next level. He thinks because I said you need to have a cornerstone that I advocated tanking for top picks. I am the one that is feeling the "brunt" of his bulldog agression right now, tomorrow it will be rangerup or death or anyone else who posts on here.

I dont take it personally. One because this is an internet forumn that I am using to pass the time at work, and 2 because Mike is a good owner who does a lot for the community. We see eye-to-eye on this we are both just too stubborn to admit it.

 You can get franchise guys from IFA, or via trade, or from free agency. There is no doubt you can take a team full of 24th overall guys and win 88 games and make a run in the playoffs, but you are going to hit a wall more often than not, and not get to the overall goal, winning a championship, more often than not.   

 
8/29/2013 3:55 PM
It's not that.  You called Gandarillas a "role player" and I think that's borderline retarded.    I THINK you know better but, if you say "Yeah, he's a damn good ballplayer that you can build an offense around", you have to crap on your "Anyone drafted 24th or later can only be a role player."   That's annoying and I believe encourages tanking.  

I got this guy at 43:   Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Matt Coghlan   I'm looking at him as a DH/RF.    I think he'll produce better numbers than Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Juan Ferrer but, because his DUR isn't 39, he'll do it full-time.   I assume you think he's a role player.  Right?
8/29/2013 6:46 PM
You can keep showing me all of the part time DH you want. I am not arguing they wont be productive at the plate. I am not arguing that they wont be guys you could plug into the 3-4-5 holes depending on how they grow. That would be their role, and nothing more. Part time slugger. They will provide no or worse bad defense. They will sit on the bench for 40-50 games. They will provide no or limited speed on the base paths.

I would consider all of those players expendable. You can find replacements for all of those guys. They are not cornerstone cogs. They fill one particular need, and good teams will find guys like that. They probably wont be built around guys like that.
8/29/2013 9:32 PM
Mike, Ferrer has good offensive ratings but that DUR is horrible.  Are you willing to have this type guy on all your teams or does the team need to be set up so that you can sacrifice a spot on a part time DH/PH type?
8/29/2013 10:07 PM
Pedro Oliva has been a central piece of a 3 time in a row WS winner and was taken 97th and is still getting better.  A finely tuned draft board can be very rewarding.  Just need to look for people who do the right things well on offense (contact, power, Vs. Right, and batting eye) or defense.  You can get completely usable players down to about 125 or so if after pick 20 you aren't looking for perfect players.

Esteban James is not even 30 yet and he is a 4 time all-star, 3 time silver slugger, 3 time gold glove winner, 4 WS winner who nearly fell out of the top 20 becuase of low durability and contact.  But in two of the vital skills (vs. R and batting eye he is elite) and hits for enough power.  You don't need perfect players.  You need players that do the right things if drafting a little lower in the draft.

I didn't draft James, though I did trade for him.  He's just a great example.
of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.