Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/05/2010Advising isn't *really* your strong suit. And it appears that you *really* struggle with the English language. Let's break it down."In a neutral park, I'd guess he'd have an OPS between .780 and .880 in most Worlds. A decent enough bat, though probably not quite enough for a full-time 1B."1. In the first bolded, italicized snippet, you suggest that he's have a particular OPS. As I noted in my 6:48 post, it's kind of BS because you really don't know what sort of world the OP is in. All worlds vary. But, to your credit, you did offer a wide ranging "answer".2. In the second, bolded, italicized snippet, you suggest that a 1B who can only produce an OPS you suggested was really not good enough for a full-time 1B. So what sort of player would be good enough for a full-time 1B? It stands to reason that a player who could produce a better OPS would be good enough. What would be better? .881 and above. As noted in my 6:42 post, MG has a total of 4 1B who would be good enough to play full-time 1B for you.Hope this helps.
While it does stand to reason that a 1B who consistently produced an OPS of .881 and above would be good enough to be a full time 1B in my estimation, it does not stand to reason that *only* those people would fit the bill.
Someone with an OPS that varied from year to year, world to world, etc., between .780 and .880, which is what I'd expect from the OP's player, would not be someone I'd expect to see on a good team at 1B, unless he brought something additional to the table, which the player linked does not.
There certainly can be times when a team can win with relatively poor production from the 1B position. If, for example, fielding a slightly-below-average bat at 1B allows you to afford the stud SS in FA, it could be a net gain. That said, generally speaking, I stand by my statement that the OP's player is probably not quite good enough to earn a full-time gig for a good team.