From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Face to face versus totals
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:08:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.151614@IASTATE.EDU> tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin) writes:
>(Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>> In article <kbanaian.194.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>
>kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
>> >Please reply to the following question:
>> >
>> >"If you had a team in a face-to-face league AND a roto team (let's say, one 
>> >that also counted doubles, triples and walks for hitters), how would they 
>> >differ?  How would you alter your drafting strategy between the two
>leagues?"
>> 
>> In a face-to-face league, superstars are at less of a premium, I
>> think.  It doesn't do you any good to have Rickey Henderson steal
>> eight bases in one week and then be injured for the next month.  It
>> might also be a bad idea to choose a bunch of players on the same
>> team.  Faced with a cold spell or a strong team, they might all
>> collapse at once.
>> 
Very true.  I had Joyner, Jefferies and McReynolds all at the beginning of 
last season.  I finished the first half of the season one game out, missing 
the playoffs.  :-(

>The dreaded "live and die with the Angels" syndrome.  I know it well...
>
>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.

>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.