I'll take Machiavelli as the manager, Sun Tzu for bench coach.

Hard to argue with that choice dahsdebater, though Sun Tzu could be a great GM, and Machiavelli is almost as paranoid as Billy Martin.

Posted by redwingscup on 4/3/2016 8:01:00 PM (view original):
Rule breaking manager? I'd take Martin Luther!

Good one.

Posted by combalt on 4/4/2016 1:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cwillis802 on 4/3/2016 8:49:00 PM (view original):
What is the salary cap?

The league that triggered this particular question is 100 mil.

With a cap that high, I'd spend more on the starting pitcher. The fact that offenses are going to be so good at 100 mil means you'll need the extra quality IP far more than a PH, as a less good pitcher will mean your bullpen will see much more usage and over the course of 42 starts, that could mean your great RPs will throw a ton more IP than you want. Plus, you can always check the RP box for him and have him do double duty as a strong LR out of the pen if needed.

Since the cap is that high, I highly doubt you'll be pinch hitting for your position players, so that means you're looking to PH for pitchers. But if you are worried about that, just draft some pitchers who can hit (thus taking away the need for PH). If you are worried about PH for pitchers late in the game and you are trailing, your Setup A/B or Closer will likely not be in the game anyway, so have your Long A/Long B guys be able to hit a bit.

With a cap that high, I'd almost say to platoon at a couple of positions. That way, you can always have the platoon guy on the bench who is not in the starting lineup be your PH...

If the cap were lower, I'd say the bench would be more important as you'd likely have less quality hitters in your lineup and you'd be facing less strong opposing lineups, so you could skimp on pitcher quality a bit, but at that level, I'm not pinch hitting for my bullpen guys at all...them hitting their TPC and MPC are more important to me, since they are likely your best pitchers anyway and your best chance to shut down the all-star lineup you are facing at $100 mil.

I agree with Frazz. Many ways you could draft a team at this cap. You could do 3 or 4 starters or even go with some tandems. I'd probably draft 2 pinch hitters and platoon at two positions, but that's just me. Lots of ways to win at this cap. Typically I don't spend much on my bench and tend to do so in lower cap leagues.

Posted by italyprof on 4/3/2016 7:04:00 AM (view original):
Philosophical team building?

For my staff I go with classics: the Greek philosophers - Socrates and Plato obviously, but even a sleeper like Parmenides is worth a look, and despite Socrates' nasty comments don't discount the Sophists, like Protagoras - it is true they would play for whoever paid them, but Socrates only played for the rich teams himself; or else go with the Germans: Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer - I am not fond of Nietzsche - his "superman" theory led to steroids scandals.

Avoid the postmodernists - they don't have enough staying power - low IP and low IP/G, the modern tendency to change pitchers three times an inning is basically a postmodernist error.

At first base you want a power hitter - Hobbes,Machiavelli or Marx, some even go toward science and try Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein, careful with the quantum theorists though, it is never clear how they play the position nor how they move.

in the middle infield, you want people who cover a lot of ground - Aristotle is without parallel here and I would put him at SS, but don't neglect the French Enlightenment types - Rousseau, Voltaire who gives you less power hitting than Rousseau but cover a lot of ground, Spinoza.

At third base you want someone who can hit and field but is more specialized in the questions they ask. Descartes is a favorite, Francis Bacon too. Some go so far as to go with the hyper-rationists like AJ Ayers, or Karl Popper, never cared for them myself. Imre Lakatos and Gyorgy Lukacs give you an alternative to too narrow a guarding of the line.

In center field you need people with power, clarity, speed - someone who gets to the point directly and yet covers a lot of ground. I prefer to go with women here - Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil, Simone de Beauvoir.

In right field, someone who hits well, but sticks to a little narrower set of questions - Jean-Paul Sartre is my favorite, some of the Existentialists - I find Camus superficial but Kierkegaard can work, or the British Empiricists, like Locke or Hume.

In left, someone with legs and power - Confucius or the bat control expert Lao Tze are my favorites here, but if you want something more modern, try Bertrand Russell maybe, Henry David Thoreau.

Behind the plate, someone solid with a good arm - Marcus Aurelius is one option, Diogenes another, though his play is of course idiosyncratic, some prefer Foucault, but I find him more susceptible to passed balls.

In the bullpen, when I need a reliever? Jesus saves, Buddha brings Nirvana, Mohammad unites the team, Moses brings the law, The New Atheists made a good case at times, but can they get the last out?

Actually you can just keep Yogi behind the plate, right?

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/4/2016 1:14:00 AM (view original):
I'll take Machiavelli as the manager, Sun Tzu for bench coach.

I feel like Machiavelli is the slam dunk choice for GM.

Posted by Big_T on 4/7/2016 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by italyprof on 4/3/2016 7:04:00 AM (view original):
Philosophical team building?

For my staff I go with classics: the Greek philosophers - Socrates and Plato obviously, but even a sleeper like Parmenides is worth a look, and despite Socrates' nasty comments don't discount the Sophists, like Protagoras - it is true they would play for whoever paid them, but Socrates only played for the rich teams himself; or else go with the Germans: Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer - I am not fond of Nietzsche - his "superman" theory led to steroids scandals.

Avoid the postmodernists - they don't have enough staying power - low IP and low IP/G, the modern tendency to change pitchers three times an inning is basically a postmodernist error.

At first base you want a power hitter - Hobbes,Machiavelli or Marx, some even go toward science and try Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein, careful with the quantum theorists though, it is never clear how they play the position nor how they move.

in the middle infield, you want people who cover a lot of ground - Aristotle is without parallel here and I would put him at SS, but don't neglect the French Enlightenment types - Rousseau, Voltaire who gives you less power hitting than Rousseau but cover a lot of ground, Spinoza.

At third base you want someone who can hit and field but is more specialized in the questions they ask. Descartes is a favorite, Francis Bacon too. Some go so far as to go with the hyper-rationists like AJ Ayers, or Karl Popper, never cared for them myself. Imre Lakatos and Gyorgy Lukacs give you an alternative to too narrow a guarding of the line.

In center field you need people with power, clarity, speed - someone who gets to the point directly and yet covers a lot of ground. I prefer to go with women here - Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil, Simone de Beauvoir.

In right field, someone who hits well, but sticks to a little narrower set of questions - Jean-Paul Sartre is my favorite, some of the Existentialists - I find Camus superficial but Kierkegaard can work, or the British Empiricists, like Locke or Hume.

In left, someone with legs and power - Confucius or the bat control expert Lao Tze are my favorites here, but if you want something more modern, try Bertrand Russell maybe, Henry David Thoreau.

Behind the plate, someone solid with a good arm - Marcus Aurelius is one option, Diogenes another, though his play is of course idiosyncratic, some prefer Foucault, but I find him more susceptible to passed balls.

In the bullpen, when I need a reliever? Jesus saves, Buddha brings Nirvana, Mohammad unites the team, Moses brings the law, The New Atheists made a good case at times, but can they get the last out?

Actually you can just keep Yogi behind the plate, right?

..after all, he could observe a lot from just watching