Ring 6
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 63,761
- Reaction score
- 14,113
I could see this going either way, either as a good topic or a total failure, so we shall see. I know my opinion and am interested in everyone elses.
The heart of the question is whether good players overcome weaknesses and liabilities elsewhere or whether the lack of weanesses equal the overall strength of a good team.
A couple things to consider:
-If I have the best DRE and the worst DLE in the league, my run D figures to be below average because there are going to be a whole lot more runs going to my R than my L.
-On the other hand, if I am average at both what the other team will do may be less predictable.
-The players surrounding a player will affect their play.
-On average, half of the players on the field are below average. That means if your team is 11 average players you better at 5 spots, worse at 5, and the same at 1 as your opponent, and by definiition you have no liabilities.
So, the questions are:
-If you fielded a full team of exactly average players, would you be a good, bad or average team.
The obvious answer is average since your players are average but what I'm looking for it the cumulaive effect of having no bad players at all on the field, so the second, more telling question is how would that team compare to:
A team with half the players being the best at their position and half being the worst in the league.
Discuss....
The heart of the question is whether good players overcome weaknesses and liabilities elsewhere or whether the lack of weanesses equal the overall strength of a good team.
A couple things to consider:
-If I have the best DRE and the worst DLE in the league, my run D figures to be below average because there are going to be a whole lot more runs going to my R than my L.
-On the other hand, if I am average at both what the other team will do may be less predictable.
-The players surrounding a player will affect their play.
-On average, half of the players on the field are below average. That means if your team is 11 average players you better at 5 spots, worse at 5, and the same at 1 as your opponent, and by definiition you have no liabilities.
So, the questions are:
-If you fielded a full team of exactly average players, would you be a good, bad or average team.
The obvious answer is average since your players are average but what I'm looking for it the cumulaive effect of having no bad players at all on the field, so the second, more telling question is how would that team compare to:
A team with half the players being the best at their position and half being the worst in the league.
Discuss....