The Major League Baseball Limitation Draft QF4 : Nos vs Stoke

[Nosferatu]

NOS

BATTING ORDER
1. Billy Hamilton (L) - LF
2. Tris Speaker (L) - CF
3. Babe Ruth (L) - RF
4. Ralph Kiner (R) - DH
5. Mike Piazza (R) - C
6. Don Mattingly (L) - 1B
7. Ryne Sandberg (R) - 2B
8. Robin Ventura (L) - 3B
9. Omar Vizquel (B) - SS

BENCH
Nellie Fox (L) - 2B
Ken Caminiti (B) - 3B
Jim Sundberg (R) - C
Deion Sanders (L) - PR
Willie McGee (B) - CF/RF

ROTATION
1. Roger Clemens (R)
2. Jim Palmer (R)
3. Ron Guidry (L)
4. Addie Joss (R)
5. Vida Blue (L)

BULLPEN
Billy Wagner (L)
Jesse Orosco (L)
Bryan Harvey (R)
Jeff Nelson (R)
Wade Davis (R)

VS

STOKE

BATTING ORDER
1. Willie Keeler (L) - RF
2. Nomar Garciaparra (R) - SS
3. Ken Griffey Jr. (L) - CF
4. Hack Wilson (R) - DH
5. Albert Belle (R) - LF
6. Roy Campanella (R) - C
7. Dick Allen (R) - 3B
8. Paul Goldschmidt (R) - 1B
9. Ross Barnes (R) - 2B

BENCH
Craig Biggio (R) - 2B/C
Max Carey (B) - CF/LF
Hugh Nicol (R) - PR
Earl Averill (L) - CF
Ben Zobrist (B) - 2B/RF

ROTATION
1. Don Sutton (R)
2. Madison Bumgarner (L)
3. Felix Hernandez (R)
4. Dutch Leonard (L)
5. Al Spalding (R)

BULLPEN
Kenley Jansen (R)
Joe Nathan (R)
Andrew Miller (L)
Koji Uehara (R)
Tony Watson (L)

 

[Nosferatu]

NOS - 7
STOKE - 1

VOTED - Stoke, Sushi, Ducey, UK, Milk, Meebs, WLK, Devil,

Race to 6

 

[blstoker]

Stoker

 

[CitySushi]

Nos

 

[tducey]

Nos

 

[UK Cowboy]

Nos

 

[Mebert]

Nos

 

[MilkSpiller22]

nos...

Stokes trading trout KILLED his chances...

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Nos

 

[blstoker]

nos...

Stokes trading trout KILLED his chances...

yeah, trading a current CF who has a good start to his career for a top 5 CF all time (if not top 3) killed my chances at winning this.

 

[wlk3]

Nos

 

[Nosferatu]

yeah, trading a current CF who has a good start to his career for a top 5 CF all time (if not top 3) killed my chances at winning this.

Yeah, you never know about Milk but he was either just messin with ya or he's an idiot so, lolzzz...

 

[Shanemansj13]

yeah, trading a current CF who has a good start to his career for a top 5 CF all time (if not top 3) killed my chances at winning this.

If you kept him you get Foxx, Musial (before I picked him) etc...you werent getting a better player than Trout in the .300+ avg category

 

[blstoker]

If you kept him you get Foxx, Musial (before I picked him) etc...you werent getting a better player than Trout in the .300+ avg category

No, if I kept him I get Sheffield, not the other 2. I already had a firstbaseman, a left fielder and a DH so I was looking at some issues at 3B. IMO, Griffey is a better CF than Trout, Allen is a better 3B than Sheffield. Overall, though I lost everyone's golden boy in recent years, I ended up with a better line up. As it stands, I have 6 players starting for me who rank in the top 100 in OPS and OPS+ while no one else has more than 4.

Keep Trout--------------------------------------Trade Trout
Keeler--------------------------------------------Keeler
Trout---------------------------------------------Garciaparra
Wilson-------------------------------------------Griffey
Belle---------------------------------------------Wilson
Campenella--------------------------------------Belle
Goldschmidt-------------------------------------Campenella
Sheffield-----------------------------------------Allen
Garciaparra--------------------------------------Goldschmidt
Barnes-------------------------------------------Barnes

Outside his 2-3-4 hitters (not that mine are bad), my line up is better than his, especially the 7-8-9 (IMO). Adding Trout doesn't change that he's got better 2-3-4 hitters, and I think the rest of my line up is better. If you thought my lineup wasn't good enough to win after the trade, there's absolutely no way I woulda won before the trade. In the end, trading away Trout ended as a wash at worst.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No, if I kept him I get Sheffield, not the other 2. I already had a firstbaseman, a left fielder and a DH so I was looking at some issues at 3B. IMO, Griffey is a better CF than Trout, Allen is a better 3B than Sheffield. Overall, though I lost everyone's golden boy in recent years, I ended up with a better line up. As it stands, I have 6 players starting for me who rank in the top 100 in OPS and OPS+ while no one else has more than 4.

Keep Trout--------------------------------------Trade Trout
Keeler--------------------------------------------Keeler
Trout---------------------------------------------Garciaparra
Wilson-------------------------------------------Griffey
Belle---------------------------------------------Wilson
Campenella--------------------------------------Belle
Goldschmidt-------------------------------------Campenella
Sheffield-----------------------------------------Allen
Garciaparra--------------------------------------Goldschmidt
Barnes-------------------------------------------Barnes

Outside his 2-3-4 hitters (not that mine are bad), my line up is better than his, especially the 7-8-9 (IMO). Adding Trout doesn't change that he's got better 2-3-4 hitters, and I think the rest of my line up is better. If you thought my lineup wasn't good enough to win after the trade, there's absolutely no way I woulda won before the trade. In the end, trading away Trout ended as a wash at worst.

why Sheffield?? you could have gotten either Eddie Mathews( if you needed a lefty) or Mike Schmidt(if you didn't care about the side of bat)...

Trading Trout, made your offense go from one of the best offenses to just one of the other offenses...

But whatever... you may disagree... But that was the way I saw your team... Not to mention you allowed Meebs to Improve his team drastically...

Interesting though, that you talk about OPS and OPS+ and trade the player with the higher OPS+... and defend it by he has had an incomplete career...

He was your clear BEST hitter before the trade...


and WE WERE ALL STUPID, to let Trout be picked AFTER the second round.....

 

[CitySushi]

I actually think the thing that hurt Stoke the most was he took Biggio in the 2nd round and ended up putting him on the bench. In this draft you needed to maximize all your slot availability. He took a player who would likely have started for almost any team in here, but he found a way to put him on the bench. That and having Averill on the bench hurt too, because he didn't maximize another .300 hitter slot.

I didn't read the rules correctly otherwise I would not have drafted Hornsby in the first, which impacted me at multiple categories right off the bat.

 

[blstoker]

I actually think the thing that hurt Stoke the most was he took Biggio in the 2nd round and ended up putting him on the bench. In this draft you needed to maximize all your slot availability. He took a player who would likely have started for almost any team in here, but he found a way to put him on the bench. That and having Averill on the bench hurt too, because he didn't maximize another .300 hitter slot.

I didn't read the rules correctly otherwise I would not have drafted Hornsby in the first, which impacted me at multiple categories right off the bat.

Biggio was taken as one of the best options at someone with no categories affected, and was moved to the bench when Barnes was taken much later. Difficult as it can be to imagine benching a second round pick - Barnes is one of the best (for era) players taken that no one really knows about. A career .360 hitter, no matter the era, batting 9th is impressive (he hit .398 over his first 6 seasons). Yes, his career was short - but if guys like Trout are lauded despite playing just 8 years, then Barnes should be looked at for how good he was for the position he qualified for.

Averill just turned into a guy who was in a spot where I had my most depth. Who do I bench? Griffey or Wilson? I viewed it as having a line up so deep that Hall of Fame guys are available if there were a need for a reliable substitutions. I toyed with Dan Brouthers or Cap Anson in that spot instead, but Averill added power the other two didn't have, so he was a more potent potential pinch hitter.

 

[CitySushi]

Biggio was taken as one of the best options at someone with no categories affected, and was moved to the bench when Barnes was taken much later. Difficult as it can be to imagine benching a second round pick - Barnes is one of the best (for era) players taken that no one really knows about. A career .360 hitter, no matter the era, batting 9th is impressive (he hit .398 over his first 6 seasons). Yes, his career was short - but if guys like Trout are lauded despite playing just 8 years, then Barnes should be looked at for how good he was for the position he qualified for.

Averill just turned into a guy who was in a spot where I had my most depth. Who do I bench? Griffey or Wilson? I viewed it as having a line up so deep that Hall of Fame guys are available if there were a need for a reliable substitutions. I toyed with Dan Brouthers or Cap Anson in that spot instead, but Averill added power the other two didn't have, so he was a more potent potential pinch hitter.

I think if you intended to pivot at some point a trade would have been useful. I would have 100% traded you earlier in the draft had you let it be known he could be had. As he was a second round pick for you I assumed you'd want him as a focal point of your team.

Barnes wasn't a bad player, it's just the under-utilization of a high pick makes a difference, IMO. You could have used that pick to strengthen a position of need instead of drafting 3 players who could only play one primary position of CF. I mean Walter Johnson, Lou Gehrig, Greg Maddux, Ty Cobb were some of the guys that went in the 2nd round. If you swapped Biggio out for any of them, your team would be much more potent.

In a draft where we were limited to having only 5 career 300 hitters, IMO, you have to find a way for all 5 to be in your regular lineup. There's a reason there was a limitation on it.

 

[blstoker]

why Sheffield?? you could have gotten either Eddie Mathews( if you needed a lefty) or Mike Schmidt(if you didn't care about the side of bat)...

Trading Trout, made your offense go from one of the best offenses to just one of the other offenses...

But whatever... you may disagree... But that was the way I saw your team... Not to mention you allowed Meebs to Improve his team drastically...

Interesting though, that you talk about OPS and OPS+ and trade the player with the higher OPS+... and defend it by he has had an incomplete career...

He was your clear BEST hitter before the trade...


and WE WERE ALL STUPID, to let Trout be picked AFTER the second round.....

Why Sheffield instead of Mathews and/or Schmidt? Because Sheffield was a lot more versatile and outside slightly lower HR numbers, Sheffield had as good if not better career than those 2. Also, since he struck out once every 8 times to the plate instead of once every 5 - and never had a season where he struck out 100 times, he is very appealing to me in these drafts.

Yes, Trout has had an incomplete career. He isn't even eligible for the Hall of Fame without a special waiver yet. I obviously have no problem drafting current players, but if we're looking at peaks - then Griffey's peak is just as good or better than Trout's - since Griffey had much more power and a much better glove while Trout had more speed and better OBP. Add in that I ended up with Belle, Wilson, Campenella, Goldschmidt and Allen - I didn't necessarily need another power RHB - but a power LHB actually helps the line up.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Why Sheffield instead of Mathews and/or Schmidt? Because Sheffield was a lot more versatile and outside slightly lower HR numbers, Sheffield had as good if not better career than those 2. Also, since he struck out once every 8 times to the plate instead of once every 5 - and never had a season where he struck out 100 times, he is very appealing to me in these drafts.

Yes, Trout has had an incomplete career. He isn't even eligible for the Hall of Fame without a special waiver yet. I obviously have no problem drafting current players, but if we're looking at peaks - then Griffey's peak is just as good or better than Trout's - since Griffey had much more power and a much better glove while Trout had more speed and better OBP. Add in that I ended up with Belle, Wilson, Campenella, Goldschmidt and Allen - I didn't necessarily need another power RHB - but a power LHB actually helps the line up.

good to see you defending yourself... i always said this was my opinion... so lets call this an agree to disagree... because i pretty much disagree with everything you posted on this thread today...

but maybe that is a good thing for ya... since i disagree with Nos and UK all the time too...