I know that the overall rating is not always a good indication of a player's value, but is it possible to be successful with a team that has most of its players with an overall rating in the 70's but with no "studs" (overall rating of 85 or above)?

Yes.

Yes. Try to have a mix of power, speed, and contact hitters. Try to have some y batters, or better still, switch hitters mixed into your lineup. Try to have a mix of right-handed and -handed pitching in your starting staff and your bullpen. Avoid players/pitchers with poor splits, especially the VSR split, since more players are right handed. Pitchers with control lower than 50 are more or less useless, unless the rest of their stuff is lights out dominant. A pitcher with control less than 40 is crap no matter what. Don't neglect defensive ratings, especially up the middle (SS, CF, 2B, C). Try to make sure that your corner in/outfielders are good hitters, or at least good offensive players in some way. Your team should be decent if you get most of this stuff done. I'm sure there are some more rules of thumb, but this is the stuff I go by, with middling success.

You described my team to a T. They have been pretty successful, making the LCS the last 2 years. But they got swept both times. Warlocks

Quote: Originally posted by joev188 on 1/23/2010I know that the overall rating is not always a good indication of a player's value, but is it possible to be successful with a team that has most of its players with an overall rating in the 70's  but with no "studs" (overall rating of 85 or above)?

I would take a pitching staff full of guys 75-80 over a staff with an 85 and a bunch of 60s..

Its so difficult to judge a player by overall rating. A catcher rated 75 is probably a stud, whereas a shortstop rated 75 is probably slightly above average (or worse). It depends on if the rating is based on having a couple high categories or his averageness being spread out throughout the key categories..

I pay little or no attention to which side of the plate a player bats; I look more at their splits, with much higher value attached to vsR than vsL.

It's probably more important to have a bunch of players who can competently field their position and hit some than to have a stud and then a bunch of guys who can hit or field.

It's a common misconception that you have to have a stud-packed team to compete. n00bs believe it, veterans perpetuate it. You don't.

Here is a suggestion I don't see much: platoon players. Seems like no one values part-time players much, but you can get some great production out of players who are in the 60's overall. The guys who only hit ies but are otherwise good players are always available at any position. The other half of the platoon is a little harder to find, but they are out there. Guys like http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1811081 also offer the added benefit of being dirt cheap come arb time.

well apparently, you should sign as many FAs as possible, don't put any money into any departments besides coaching and payroll, make sure you don't commit the cardinal sin of signing IFAs because apparently only worthless pieces of **** do that and it's like cheating and it's not fair to other owners who choose not so sign those types of prospects, if your team has a low draft pick that's not fair to the good teams so draft poorly so the rich can get richer (genius), try not to win either 100 games (you're a cheater who built their team by tanking)or lose more than 90 (tanker!), don't trade veterans for prospects, basically aim for the last wildcard spot, because folks who aren't successful in the playoffs despite regular season success think every team should have the same chance. take a socialist view of your teams and world. Share the wealth if you will.

You might want to distinguish between success in the regular vs. postseason. In a short series one "stud" pitcher and closer can have a greater impact than they might over the course of a full season.

Again, "stud" pitchers have bad games. They are not a requirement to find success in HBD. Everyone would like one, everyone can't have one. Doesn't mean you're doomed to failure if you don't.

I'd say that not having any huge flaws is a better goal than having a team filled with All-Stars.

Think about the 1998 Yankees.

Great players, yes... but it was more that without any real weaknesses, someone would be able to pick up the slack almost all the time.

Adding Sammy Sosa or Barry bonds to play the revolving door LF spot would have improved them on paper, but maybe not necessarily in the win column.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2010Again, "stud" pitchers have bad games.   They are not a requirement to find success in HBD.  Everyone would like one, everyone can't have one.  Doesn't mean you're doomed to failure if you don't.

Agreed. I've made a world series and was in the playoffs several seasons in a row without a stud pitcher. I prefer depth to one pitcher eating up my cap.

Well, I don't believe I said or even implied "required" to have those guys or "doomed to failure" if you don't. I believe it's worth considering because I think it improves the odds of success in a short series in a way that is very different from what those players provide to a team over a full season.

I do agree that good players can have bad games and bad players good games, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to maximize leverage of best resources in key games.

I also suggest that if a team does have a few weaknesses it is easier to hide them during a playoff series. You only need 3 good starters as opposed to 4 or 5 and can probably do fine with 4 relievers instead of 7 or 8. During the season, those "extra players" are very helpful in getting you to the playoffs. Once there, they may never see the mound.

tnicol - all due respect, your card says you've made the playoffs 5 times and won the AL once. I have no idea what your pitching staff looked like or that of your opponent, but are you suggesting that throwing a better starter in game 1 and/or have a better closer wouldn't have improved your odds of advancing deeper into the playoffs more often?