Who is the better LF? Rose or Charlestown?

[daves]

Now that PT22 limits training it is getting challenging to move players especially with the new franchise heroes card connections. Since Curt Flood can only play CF, Charleston is forced to move. In PT 21, Charlestown would train to be a 140 in LF, but in PT22 he is limited to 70.

Is Pete Rose better at LF than Charlestown??

[Hertston]

No. Charleston's range and arm stats outweigh his lower rating in the position. His error rating is high enough not to worry about.

That said, who you play probably depends how your team is set up and what strategy you are using. Rose is the better hitter overall, but lacks Charleston's speed and stealing ability. Personally given those three cards I'd use Rose as a substitute and PH because of his defensive capability across multiple positions.

[daves]

Originally Posted by Hertston

No. Charleston's range and arm stats outweigh his lower rating in the position. His error rating is high enough not to worry about.

That said, who you play probably depends how your team is set up and what strategy you are using. Rose is the better hitter overall, but lacks Charleston's speed and stealing ability. Personally given those three cards I'd use Rose as a substitute and PH because of his defensive capability across multiple positions.

Thanks. I was wondering who to put in LF and who to DH since they are both good hitters.

[chazzycat]

Personally I prefer Rose...all Oscar's defense belongs in center, not the corners.

[Madmarcus]

The talk about Charleston reminds me of my perennial question. Can you think of a position rating as a multiplier (so Oscar is roughly 0.70 percent as good in LF as he should be from his base stats)?

[stan-theman]

Every week no matter what league i am in Oscar does great for all the teams he is on except mine.barely hits .250what am i doing wrong

[bailey]

Originally Posted by stan-theman

Every week no matter what league i am in Oscar does great for all the teams he is on except mine.barely hits .250what am i doing wrong

Maybe, the other Charleston's in the league beat up on your pitching which your Charleston can't do?

It's just one of those things. Here is my Charleston in Diamond League for the last 6 seasons.

[Orcin]

I would put Rose in LF, Oscar in CF, and Flood on the bench.

[Hertston]

Originally Posted by Madmarcus

The talk about Charleston reminds me of my perennial question. Can you think of a position rating as a multiplier (so Oscar is roughly 0.70 percent as good in LF as he should be from his base stats)?

I don't think so. It would certainly change my opinion on this question if that were the case. I thought the whole point of base stats for infield and outfielders was that they applied equally across all positions, even when experience and overall ability in a position varied. If they don't, then why bother having them at all?

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Hertston

I don't think so. It would certainly change my opinion on this question if that were the case. I thought the whole point of base stats for infield and outfielders was that they applied equally across all positions, even when experience and overall ability in a position varied. If they don't, then why bother having them at all?

The base ratings are obviously the main point, but they are adjusted by the internal "experience" a player has a position.

So, for Charleston, if you took his "base" ratings of range/error/arm, and ran them through a calculator, his LF rating "should" be about a 140. But his listed rating is a 70, because internally, he is only given basically 1/2 credit for experience there. So he will not play LF in the same way that a 106 range LF who has full experience would play. But the 1/2 range doesn't necessarily mean he will play it the same way that a 53 range LF would play it, due to some ways in how the values get calculated. He probably is closer to like a 60-65 range as a LF. Of course, error and arm also calculate around their own ways and have other pieces to them, so yeah, he probably plays "better" than a true 70-rated LF would play, but whether he plays better than the 88-rated Rose? Most likely not.

[IanIachimoe]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The base ratings are obviously the main point, but they are adjusted by the internal "experience" a player has a position.

So, for Charleston, if you took his "base" ratings of range/error/arm, and ran them through a calculator, his LF rating "should" be about a 140. But his listed rating is a 70, because internally, he is only given basically 1/2 credit for experience there. So he will not play LF in the same way that a 106 range LF who has full experience would play. But the 1/2 range doesn't necessarily mean he will play it the same way that a 53 range LF would play it, due to some ways in how the values get calculated. He probably is closer to like a 60-65 range as a LF. Of course, error and arm also calculate around their own ways and have other pieces to them, so yeah, he probably plays "better" than a true 70-rated LF would play, but whether he plays better than the 88-rated Rose? Most likely not.

thank you for the explanation, always wondered about position rating, range, arm, error & how it applies to the other positions & their OVR rating.

I assumed range, arm, error were (mostly) all that mattered & didn't pay much attn to the positional rating.

[HelpDodgers]

Rose is better loking