From: tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin)
Subject: Re: Face to face versus totals
Reply-To: tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:32:52 GMT

In article <kbanaian.195.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>,
kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.151614@IASTATE.EDU> tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M
Loughin) writes:
> >
> >One thing that is particularly important in our league is catching, since 
> >they take so many scheduled days off.  The common strategy is to draft your 
> >starter's backup.  In our Annual (no carryover) league, I drafted Lenny 
> >Webster to back up Harper.  You'd never do that in a roto-league.  
> >
> Interesting -- nobody does that in our league.
> 
> >Also, sometimes the deciding factor between two players is the expected 
> >playing time, rather than the "pure quality" of the players.  Depending on 
> >the makeup of your team, you may find that Manuel Lee is more valuable 
> >than, say, Jeff Blauser (assuming he splits time with Belliard).
> >
> >On the other hand, it's often possible to pick up high-production platoon 
> >players, and use them well, if you've got full-timers backing them up.  At 
> >least in our system, if your first-listed player has the day off, you drop 
> >down to the next guy, and so on.  If you can't fill a position, you take an 
> >0-fer-4.
> >
> The latter is preferable.  We get oh-fers too.  What I particularly like 
> about the platoon strategy is that I can get an occasional 1-for-1 or even 
> an 0-for-1.  If this is my shortstop, that's good, because it doesn't weigh 
> down my contributions from McGriff or Hollins.
> 
Aye, there's the rub...We have to generate at least two plate appearances at 
each position.  Thus, if Joe Defense goes 0-for-1, the guy below him, Bob 
Shortsuck, enters into the picture as well.  Since walks are not universally 
itemized in boxscores (yet), they don't count.  This means that when Big Frank 
goes 0-for-1 with 3 BBs, we have to move down to the next guy as well.  

It's a weakness of the league, admittedly, but one that can't change until the 
boxes do.  Even then, it's not too likely--this league has been operating under
essentially the same rules since about 1974! 

On the other hand, when Otis Nixon managed 40-some SB primarily as a pinch 
runner, having him around was like getting a free SB on top of your regular 
every so often!

> >Using this strategy, I've won the league twice in three years be assembling 
> >collections of talent in the outfield (no LF/CF/RF, just OF) like Milt 
> >Thompson, Mitch Webster, Kevin Reimer, and Luis Gonzalez, who seem to hit 
> >well enough when platooned, while concentrating stars in infield positions
> >(Frank Thomas, Edgar Martinez, Delino Deshields, Tony Fernandez, and Brian 
> >Harper...maybe not _all_ stars, but by far the best overall infield in our
> >league).  
> 
> I argue that in a league where power counts big, you would probably prefer 
> platooners at the middle infield (particularly late inning replacements that 
> get one AB/G) and let your bases come from big outfielders.  Moreover, they 
> are more plentiful and thus cheaper.

Exactly--more plentiful means that everyone will have them.  No advantage for 
me.  By staying on top of things and moving guys in and out of the starting 
positions, I've been able to get much the same production from these scrubs 
that most people get from their #2 and #3 OF.  And it's a good laugh seeing 
the look on an opponent's face when he finds out he lost to an outfield of 
Thompson, Webster, and Gonzalez is more than worth it! :-} 

NOT everybody has a productive infield.  And platoons in the infield are 
rarer and less stable, I believe, due to the strains of fielding.  Your point 
is well taken, _providing_ you can find a worthwhile platooner.  There just 
aren't many Blausers or Sharpersons.  

-Tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball.fantasy