Poll
Question:
Which bench is the best bench?
Option 1: California
votes: 3
Option 2: Boston
votes: 14
Option 3: Detroit
votes: 1
Option 4: St. Louis
votes: 0
Option 5: New York
votes: 0
Option 6: Houston
votes: 1
Option 7: Minnesota
votes: 0
Option 8: San Francisco
votes: 0
Option 9: National
votes: 1
Option 10: American
votes: 1
Quote from: edfan on 01/20/10, 07:41:50 AM
Ca has the best bench in the game (top to bottom), All-Stars included imo.
This struck me as odd... Cali certainly has a top tier bench, but best? I disagree. What does everyone else think?
Definitely SL.
In the discussion:
Ca, Bo, Na
Boston is the only one with 3 legit sluggers and I really think it is tough to argue against Boston.
Quote from: ultimate7 on 01/24/10, 03:17:04 PM
Boston is the only one with 3 legit sluggers and I really think it is tough to argue against Boston.
The only issue is they're all righties. And Sullivan.
Boston easily
I'm a big fan of the Boston bench. Armas and Burks are two of my favorite players and Henderson is certainly no slouch.
The righty issue doesn't bother me because I prefer righties. And Sullivan is an immense turd...
CA/NA is a tougher decision. I like NA, but I'm weird.
gotta be boston.
boston is the only one good enough where you have to talk yourself out of using almost all of them in the first bat through
Stop talking to yourself, not healthy imo
And anyone who even considers putting Sullivan in the first time through the order has issues
I always put in Armas, Burks, and Henderson the first time around.
I don't use Sullivan unless a pitcher was on his way out anyway, I never go out of my way to use him.
Is this a vote for bench to start the game? Or bench as used late in the game?
This would change a lot of votes. If use properly, Boston's "bench" is used up within 2 or 3 innings at most. Then you have Sullivan as the only bench player.
I put in Armas at leadoff, and Burks gets subbed in for Barrett. I use Hndrsn more sparingly, and only use Stinky Sullivan if someone threatens me.
Boston has the best players on the bench, but I think CA depends on their bench more. CA is a pretty shitty team with just their starters and Boston is a better team with just the starters.
Quote from: Mike D. on 01/25/10, 08:24:10 AM
I put in Armas at leadoff, and Burks gets subbed in for Barrett.
???
Quote from: ultimate7 on 01/25/10, 09:30:17 AM
Quote from: Mike D. on 01/25/10, 08:24:10 AM
I put in Armas at leadoff, and Burks gets subbed in for Barrett.
???
When Mike says "leadoff" he means not leadoff.
I'm easily confused. I meant Owen- Armas for Barrett..
Johnny (Arcade RBI)
Quote from: Mike D. on 01/25/10, 09:41:08 AM
I'm easily confused. I meant Owen- Armas for Barrett..
Same here, with Henderson used sparingly, as you said before.
Quote from: Briznock on 01/25/10, 08:13:38 AM
Is this a vote for bench to start the game? Or bench as used late in the game?
The bench with the best players... doesn't matter how you choose to use them.
EVERYONE! Look how dumb MikeD is!
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/24/10, 02:55:09 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/20/10, 07:41:50 AM
Ca has the best bench in the game (top to bottom), All-Stars included imo.
This struck me as odd... Cali certainly has a top tier bench, but best? I disagree. What does everyone else think?
Ca has no weak spots in their bench. Hendrick is the weakest link and he is typically good for at least a home run when you put him in. Several teams have better individual players, for example:
Armas has more power off the bench, but I think that Ruppert is much better all around (Speed + power)
Jones > Armas; Wilfong < Burks; Burleson = Henderson; Hendrick > Sullivan
Jones < McGwire ; Wilfong > Molitor; Burleson > Seitzer; Hendrick = Franco
Jones < Murphy; Wilfong > Guerrero; Burleson = Gwynn; Kruk = Hendrick
Na is really the only team that comes even close as far as subs go
You sir, are on crack. Burleson is definitely not better than Hendrick, nor is he equal to Henderson. And it ain't close...
I disagree. Hendrick is a one-trick pony. I usually either homer with him or it's an out. Burleson has less power, but provides clutch hitting for me. I usually leave him on the bench for late game heroics. I give Hendrick the start (over Boone sometimes) because when he's on...he's on. When he's off, though, I don't expect much.
Still on crack... Hendricks power rating is 60 points higher and Henderson's in 90 points higher, no clutch factor can trump that. In fact, Burleson's power rating is the same as Sullivans - 789. THE SAME AS SULLIVAN
Quote from: Gantry on 01/25/10, 01:13:55 PM
Still on crack... Hendricks power rating is 60 points higher and Henderson's in 90 points higher, no clutch factor can trump that. In fact, Burleson's power rating is the same as Sullivans - 789. THE SAME AS SULLIVAN
I honestly didn't know that about the power rankings. I can only go by the games that I've played, so I guess it is more of a personal opinion based on anecdotal evidence rather than a scientific study. I can appreciate the power ratings.
Even if you switched it around, I could see giving the edge Hendrick < Henderson because of speed. However, Burleson > Sullivan cannot be argued.
Agreed there - he's definitely better than Sullivan (speed and Sully's BRUTAL contact rating make him so bad) but I can't put him in Hendrick or Henderson's league at all.
The big reason you like Burly better imo is because you save him for a clutch AB late in the game. This has two effects:
1) Virtually every time he bats with you he gets the PH bonus, while Hendrick gets 75% of his ABs without it
2) You save him for important, clutch situations where his impact and the bonus inflate his worth
I think if you put Burleson in the same spot where you normally put Hendrick and save Hendrick for PH boost, clutch situations only you'll quickly see who the better player is.
Jones > Armas; Wilfong < Burks; Hendrick < Henderson (speed factor); Burleson > Sullivan
Jones < McGwire ; Wilfong > Molitor; Hendrick > Seitzer; Burleson = Franco
Jones < Murphy; Wilfong > Guerrero; Hendrick = Gwynn (power and speed cancel out); Burleson = Franco
Taking into account Gantry's squabbling, I still stand by my statement that Ca has the most best bench in the game
Totally unscientific, but it is how I see it and play the game
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/25/10, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 12:52:24 PM
Wilfong > Guerrero
Wait... seriously?
I rarely even sub him in except for the pitcher. Just like in real life, lots of potential, but not much there. Wilfong is a great sub. Power, speed and contact
WILFONG! Best all around bench player. Scorches EVERYONE on this board.
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 01:37:59 PM
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/25/10, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 12:52:24 PM
Wilfong > Guerrero
Wait... seriously?
I rarely even sub him in except for the pitcher. Just like in real life, lots of potential, but not much there. Wilfong is a great sub. Power, speed and contact
Wilfong - 816, 132, 29
Pedro - 849, 128, 12
Wilfong is slightly faster and a lefty, Pedro has better power and much, much better contact.
I'll take Pedro any day.
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/25/10, 02:05:17 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 01:37:59 PM
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/25/10, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 12:52:24 PM
Wilfong > Guerrero
Wait... seriously?
I rarely even sub him in except for the pitcher. Just like in real life, lots of potential, but not much there. Wilfong is a great sub. Power, speed and contact
Wilfong - 816, 132, 29
Pedro - 849, 128, 12
Wilfong is slightly faster and a lefty, Pedro has better power and much, much better contact.
I'll take Pedro any day.
Like I said before, I can only base it off of my experience. I know that Pedro SHOULD have much better power. However, I rarely have success with him. I have always had success with Wilfong, though. I was just giving my opinion as to why I felt that Ca had the best bench. I totally respect anyone else's opinion on it, especially since you are backing it up with power ratings. So much of this stuff is personal preference. Not trying to convert anyone here ;)
Rule #1 of dee-nee: your opinion is wrong. imo
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/25/10, 02:05:17 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 01:37:59 PM
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/25/10, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 12:52:24 PM
Wilfong > Guerrero
Wait... seriously?
I rarely even sub him in except for the pitcher. Just like in real life, lots of potential, but not much there. Wilfong is a great sub. Power, speed and contact
Wilfong - 816, 132, 29
Pedro - 849, 128, 12
Wilfong is slightly faster and a lefty, Pedro has better power and much, much better contact.
I'll take Pedro any day.
Like I said before, I can only base it off of my experience. I know that Pedro SHOULD have much better power. However, I rarely have success with him. I have always had success with Wilfong, though. I was just giving my opinion as to why I felt that Ca had the best bench. I totally respect anyone else's opinion on it, especially since you are backing it up with power ratings. So much of this stuff is personal preference. Not trying to convert anyone here ;)
I understand personal preferences, nad my own is to better contact. Most people want power and nothing else but I love players with great contact... Boggs and Puckett are a couple of my favorites. Gwynn and Franco have good contact but almost no power whatsoever so they don't count. Guys like Pedro, on the other hand, have enough power with great contact to make them sneaky sluggers, which I like.
I like Wilfong fine as a leadoff guy, I'm just not a huge fan.
Quote from: Gantry on 01/25/10, 02:16:42 PM
Rule #1 of dee-nee: your opinion is wrong. imo
Coming from a guy who claims that Sheridan > Madlock, I agree...your opinion is wrong imo. Everyone else is entitled to their opinion, though
Your jib is poorly cut....
Quote from: Gantry on 01/25/10, 02:23:26 PM
Your jib is poorly cut....yet I find myself liking it
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: Gantry on 01/25/10, 02:16:42 PM
Rule #1 of dee-nee: your opinion is wrong. imo
Coming from a guy who claims that Sheridan > Madlock, I agree...your opinion is wrong imo. Everyone else is entitled to their opinion, though
You had to go there. You just couldn't leave well enough alone.
You called down the thunder, well now your have it. You tell the others Sheridan's coming. You tell em I'm coming and hell's coming with me. You hear?
YES!
Quote from: BDawk on 01/25/10, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: Gantry on 01/25/10, 02:16:42 PM
Rule #1 of dee-nee: your opinion is wrong. imo
Coming from a guy who claims that Sheridan > Madlock, I agree...your opinion is wrong imo. Everyone else is entitled to their opinion, though
You had to go there. You just couldn't leave well enough alone.
You called down the thunder, well now your have it. You tell the others Sheridan's coming. You tell em I'm coming and hell's coming with me. You hear?
Bring it on, sister. Sure, you can believe that Sheridan is the best. You can get some others to believe it too. You can also tell people that the Sun revolves around the Earth and some people will believe you. You'll know BDawk's followers when you see them. They'll be the guys with tin foil on their heads and wearing jump suits made of bubble wrap chanting nonsense leaving Madlock on the bench all the while
Here is BDawk playing one of Gantry's cats in RBI. This is right before he subs in Sheridan for Herndon at the beginning of the game
(http://guermonprez.eu/paul/blog/public/images/etc/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
You can tell by the look on his face that the cat thinks that it is a stupid move and approves of Madlock. He's just a cat, though and does not have opposable thumbs for subbing
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 02:50:24 PM
Here is BDawk playing one of Gantry's cats in RBI. This is right before he subs in Sheridan for Herndon at the beginning of the game
(http://guermonprez.eu/paul/blog/public/images/etc/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
You are so wrong. This is when Gantry, myself and his cats play D&D
I'm pretty sure that's MikeD
Quote from: BDawk on 01/25/10, 08:45:46 AM
Boston has the best players on the bench, but I think CA depends on their bench more. CA is a pretty shitty team with just their starters and Boston is a better team with just the starters.
I don't know about that.
Barret, Buckner, and Owen are about as bad as it gets.
I can't believe anyone thinks that Burleson is better than Pedro Guerrero.
I don't think anyone made the claim that Burleson is better than Guerrero. I did say that I like Wilfong better than Guerrero, though. I do have a bit of a lefty bias, though. Guerrero is a disappointment in RBI for me
Teh Maverick too?
Quote from: edfan on 01/25/10, 03:28:39 PM
I don't think anyone made the claim that Burleson is better than Guerrero. I did say that I like Wilfong better than Guerrero, though. I do have a bit of a lefty bias, though. Guerrero is a disappointment in RBI for me
Sorry... I feel the same way about Wilfong over Guerrero, too.
If it's not Wilfong, either Tony "The Bone" Armas or Marky "Sell A Soul" Sullivan from Boston crushes the opposition's pitching. Dave Henderson is clutch as balls too.
I may be the only one who says this, but for how shitty Houston is, Terry Puhl is actually pretty solid for 1-2 ABs before he lags off with hitting to the 3rd baseman.
My .02 for the night. I missed the whole MikeD argument.
i like to go burks first, armas second, sometimes i keep owen and put in hndrsn late and sometimes just go with him.
In ATG, I very rarely use a pinch hitter the first time through the line-up. I am all about taking a lot of pitches and trying to tire out the starter as much as possible. I am fine scoring no runs in the first few innings, especially against someone with nasty pitching skills.
Then I start bringing in the subs situationally. For example, I will not put in Armas with a guy on 1st and less than two outs, as it kills me to waste that enormous PH bonus on a DP ball. I'd rather have a crappy lefty, to get me a better chance at avoiding a DP.
In Str8P, I put in Armas-1, Burks-2, and Henderson for Owen. Sullivan is saved for a late inning PH spot for a pitcher (and potentially for Boggs in rare situations, as sullivan has the same power as Boggs, but with a 64 point PH bonus).
i can't imagine putting in stinky for wade fucking boggs
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 01/26/10, 06:23:39 PM
i can't imagine putting in stinky for wade fucking boggs
Same here. Boggs is the man.
wade fucking boggs
855 power for Sullivan to PH in the 9th playing straight pitch
Well straight pitch is for sissies anyways...
Quote from: Re-Peat on 01/26/10, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 01/26/10, 06:23:39 PM
i can't imagine putting in stinky for wade fucking boggs
Same here. Boggs is the man.
Agree. I don't understand why anyone would take out boggs, but leave buckner in the game. Makes no sense.
It is true that they have the same maximum power. However, boggs is MUCH faster and he only has a -4 surcharge for not hitting the ball on the sweet spot. So pretty much, he has nearly the same power as buckner when he doesn't even hit the ball on the sweet spot.
Boggs sucks giant monkey dicks.
The dicks of giant monkeys?
Or the dicks of the monkeys with giant dicks?
Giant monkeys have giant dicks. Small monkeys have small dicks
I took a few monkey dick classes in college so I know what I'm talking about
because that's what you do at penn state
What's the Barrett debate? I've read on here that a lot of people take out Maaaahhhty Barrett in favor of either Dave Henderson or possibly Armas (for the heavy 1st at-bat).
I've generally never had any major problems with the former Sox 2nd baseman, but it seems like he gets a lot of flack. Any reasons why?
Also, Stinky Sullivan is only worthwhile in the 9th. Made the crucial mistake recently putting him in the 8th for Gedman and it went nowhere.
Quote from: bigbrothermuscle on 01/28/10, 12:41:56 PM
What's the Barrett debate? I've read on here that a lot of people take out Maaaahhhty Barrett in favor of either Dave Henderson or possibly Armas (for the heavy 1st at-bat).
I've generally never had any major problems with the former Sox 2nd baseman, but it seems like he gets a lot of flack. Any reasons why?
I think it's mostly because the Sox have three really good bench bats, and Barrett is one of the three worst Sox starters.
I always disliked Barrett partially because of his anemic power and partially because of his disappointing speed - he's one of the slower leadoff men in the game.
Quote from: Stock on 01/27/10, 08:34:07 AM
Agree. I don't understand why anyone would take out boggs, but leave buckner in the game. Makes no sense.
It is true that they have the same maximum power. However, boggs is MUCH faster and he only has a -4 surcharge for not hitting the ball on the sweet spot. So pretty much, he has nearly the same power as buckner when he doesn't even hit the ball on the sweet spot.
Thats was the best use of "surcharge" ever....by a landslide.
Quote from: bigbrothermuscle on 01/28/10, 12:41:56 PM
What's the Barrett debate? I've read on here that a lot of people take out Maaaahhhty Barrett in favor of either Dave Henderson or possibly Armas (for the heavy 1st at-bat).
I've generally never had any major problems with the former Sox 2nd baseman, but it seems like he gets a lot of flack. Any reasons why?
Also, Stinky Sullivan is only worthwhile in the 9th. Made the crucial mistake recently putting him in the 8th for Gedman and it went nowhere.
What beef said about barret. I have him ranked as the 5th worst player in the game. I would rather have Owen in the lineup than barret as I would give him a slight nod due to being a lefty.
As for sullivan, he is only good for one AB, so you should never sub him for a 1-8 hitter... only the pitcher's spot.
Once he blows his PH wad, he is worse than Buckner, and that is befor you factor in that he is only a righty.
Even with his PH bonus he is still the weakest bench player without the others having their pinch hit bonus.
With his pinch hit bonus, he is also weaker than Rice, Baylor, Evans, and Gedman.
Oh yeah, he is also tied for last in speed in the entire game.
I agree, Bucker has sucked it up lately. He hits dingers once in a while, but slaps into too many DPs a lot. Dave Henderson is the man coming off the bench though. That guy I'd put up there with Bayor and Armas in terms of pure power, he's got it.
Quote from: bigbrothermuscle on 01/29/10, 10:47:55 AM
I agree, Bucker has sucked it up lately. He hits dingers once in a while, but slaps into too many DPs a lot. Dave Henderson is the man coming off the bench though. That guy I'd put up there with Bayor and Armas in terms of pure power, he's got it.
Not to mention all the times Buckner gets thrown out from Right Field.
He is the worst.
Boston hands down! Armas for Barret, Burks for Buckner, Henderson for Owens. Sully is only used when I need to sub for the pitcher in late innings, but has been known to hit a grand slam or two for me!
Johnny.
Well, being serious, I'd say Detroit (I just voted for them). Boston's bench may look better, stats & all, but I do alot better with Detroit's bench.
Madlock and Heath have a ton of power & always get me deep drives or homers (long ones), and I know everyone talks about how great Sheridan is (plus he's a lefty), and ol' Bergman can hit quite a few longballs (lefty too)!
I can't believe this game is now 23 years old......
Madlock sucks!
Quote from: Metal King on 02/04/10, 12:16:31 AM
Johnny.
Well, being serious, I'd say Detroit (I just voted for them). Boston's bench may look better, stats & all, but I do alot better with Detroit's bench.
Madlock and Heath have a ton of power & always get me deep drives or homers (long ones), and I know everyone talks about how great Sheridan is (plus he's a lefty), and ol' Bergman can hit quite a few longballs (lefty too)!
I can't believe this game is now 23 years old......
Detroit definitely has the lefties going for them.
Let's just take a look at the power stats and hand.
I have included Bo, Ca, & Dt (as I feel these are the only debatable teams in this argument).
Bo Dt Ca
R 918 R 849 L 891
R 888 L 831 R 849
R 879 R 819 L 816
R 789 L 789 R 789
BostonPros: By far the best average & median power (32 & 51 respective points over Dt.)
Only team with a 900+ bench guy.
Boston's 3rd most powerful bench guy is more powerfull than all Dt's and 3 of Ca's.
Cons: No Lefties
The worst of the 4th best bench guys, driving the most variance (or inconsistancy) in bench power.
DetroitPros: 2 Lefties
Most consistently powerful bench (lowest variance).
The best #4 power guy.
Cons: Lowest average & median power bench.
CalPros: Jones is only 27 points weaker than Armas, but is a lefty and has 10 points better speed. (Arguably the best overall bench guy on the 3 teams).
2 Lefties
Top 2 guys have 60 more power points than Dt's.
Cons: Blow their wad with Hndrk & Jones. Lowest average bottom 2 of these three teams.
I think if I had to rank, I would still go with Bo being number 1. Their only weakness is too many righties, but the power is so much greater.
I will rank Ca ahead of Dt. I could even accept an argument that they are better than Bo (depending on my mood). 2 good lefties with decent power and a strong righty.
Dt has a great bench and are very consistent. However, they are consistently much weaker than Boston and Cal. Their saving grace is Sheridan, in that he is the best of the 3 teams once you are down to your weakest bench guy.
Well put. Nice commentary, heh heh.
I can't believe all this good ol' discussion about a game that's almost 25 years old!
I still take Detroit, they probably perform well 'cause I'm a Tigers fan and live in Michigan....
Madlock sucks? I'm shocked to see that. He has very McGwire-ish type power everytime I swing.
Ok CLOSE to his power, I'm tellin' ya, the ball flies off Mad Dog's bat.
I usually have trouble with Burks and Henderson off Boston's bench, especially Henderson. Lots of ground outs, but I swing the same way.
Putting in Armas for Barrett and Burks for Buckner has made a HUGE difference in how this Boston team gets their runs scored.
Thanks for the suggestions everyone. Hope your weekend coming up rocks!