Round 13
14: (10) Jair Jurrjens - SP - 10-3, 55K, 2.07/1.14 (Shawn)
13: (6) Gio Gonzalez - SP - 7-5, 99K, 2.38/1.24 (Chris T)
12: (1) Jordan Zimmerman - SP - 5-6, 67K, 2.85/1.11 (Tom)
11: (12) Hiroki Kuroda - SP - 5-9, 77K, 3.10/1.25 (Stew)
10: (14) Michael Cuddyer - INF/OF - .286/.351/.454 33-30-7 (Chris J)
9: (13) Ervin Santana - SP - 3-8, 92K, 4.08/1.28 (Austin)
8: (7) Jorge De La Rosa - SP - 5-2, 52K, 3.51/1.19 (Owen)
7: (9) Kelly Johnson - 2B - .213/.292/.420 43-34-8 (Fabian)
6: (3) Wade Davis - SP - 7-5, 43K, 4.32/1.44 (James)
5: (5) Torii Hunter - OF - .242/.313/.372 32-39-2 (Ryan)
4: (8) Frank Francisco - RP - 8 SV, 26K, 4.50/1.64 (Paul)
3: (11) Vernon Wells - OF - .219/.251/.386 31-26-2 (Kyle)
2: (4) Joe Nathan - RP - 3 SV, 17K, 7.27/1.56 (Joe)
1: (2) Javier Vazquez - SP/RP - 4-8, 59K, 5.83/1.58 (Mike)
I'm making Vazquez the goat over Nathan because the impact of a poor starter is more severe than the impact of a poor reliever. It's interesting to note how many injury gambles were made this round, and how differently they generally turned out.
De La Rosa was having himself a fine season, so it's a shame that he's out for the year. This could easily have been a top-3 pick for the round. His two good months earn him enough credit over Kelly Johnson and the crap brigade. Also, sneaky-good late pick of Cuddyer, eligible at 2B, putting up decent rate stats with enough stolen bases to justify playing him. If the Twins ever stop being awful, he could put up even more numbers.
Round 14
14: (7) Asdrubal Cabrera - SS - .292/.342/.495 52-46-12 (Paul)
13: (8) Ian Kennedy - SP - 8-2, 97K, 3.01/1.09 (Owen)
12: (3) Adam Jones - OF - .294/.339/.488 38-46-5 (Stew)
11: (1) Tim Stauffer - SP/RP - 3-5, 82K, 3.09/1.21 (Chris J)
10: (13) Bobby Abreu - OF - .288/.402/.381 30-32-13 (Mike)
9: (9) Brandon Morrow - SP - 3-4, 81K, 4.90/1.37 (Chris T)
8: (4) Edwin Jackson - SP - 4-6, 81K, 4.13/1.48 (Kyle)
7: (10) Brett Myers - SP - 3-6, 75K, 4.65/1.32 (Ryan)
6: (5) Jason Kubel - OF - .310/.355/.465 20-30-1 (Shawn)
5: (6) Jose Tabata - OF - .265/.351/.354 39-15-14 (Fabian)
4: (14) Austin Jackson - OF - .252/.316/.371 41-22-13 (Tom)
3: (12) Tsuyoshi Nishioka - 2B/SS - .206/.270/.265 2-4-1 (James)
2: (2) Fernando Rodney - RP - 3 SV, 18K, 4.09/1.41 (Austin)
1: (11) Brian Matusz - SP - 1-3, 16K, 6.85/1.84 (Joe)
Owen, I think either the Cabrera and Kennedy picks were bigger than even the Montero one. Asdrubal has taken Hanley Ramirez's numbers. Ian Kennedy has been, what, the second best pitcher taken since round 5? Just behind Jurrjens, and only barely thanks to the strikeout differential.
Mike gets bonus points for taking the fourth outfielder of the round and getting the second best one. Morrow has been a disappointment, but in terms of value, he's put up those strikeouts in far fewer starts than his contemporaries. Like last year, I have high hopes for his second half, but at this pace even a 4.50 ERA would be better than my non-Verlander roster. Thanks, Greinke & JJ Putz!
Round 15
14: (2) James Shields - SP - 8-4, 117K, 2.29/0.96 (Mike)
13: (6) David Ortiz - DH - .311/.391/.581 48-48-1 (Chris T)
12: (13) Johnny Cueto - SP - 5-2, 48K, 1.84/0.94 (Austin)
11: (14) Brandon League - RP - 21 SV, 21K, 3.58/1.10 (Chris J)
10: (1) Kyle Farnsworth - RP - 16 SV, 22K, 2.20/0.89 (Tom)
9: (11) Erick Aybar - SS - .287/.324/.437 33-33-16 (Kyle)
8: (9) Justin Masterson - SP/RP - 5-6, 75K, 2.98/1.32 (Fabian)
7: (10) Carlos Zambrano - SP/RP - 6-4, 74K, 4.38/1.34 (Shawn)
6: (5) Yadier Molina - C - .289/.337/.418 24-29-1 (Ryan)
5: (12) Daniel Bard - RP - 1 SV, 36K, 2.39/0.85 (Stew)
4: (7) Gordon Beckham - 2B - .229/.292/.338 31-21-2 (Owen)
3: (8) Manny Ramirez - OF - 0.59/0.59/0.59 0-1-0 (Paul)
2: (3) Aroldis Chapman - RP - 0 SV, 20K, 6.60/1.87 (James)
1: (4) Jake McGee - RP - 0 SV, 2K, 5.14/2.00 (Joe)
The key to success in fantasy baseball is to strike gold in round 15, apparently. Shields is an even better pick than Cabrera and Kennedy last round. Fuck you, Mike.
The bottom three requires a brief explanation. Manny Ramirez, obviously a waste of a pick, at least had the good graces to a) leave early and b) be up front about being your OF3 or U batter, so expectations had to be tempered making the selection. Chapman's been hyped since before he entered the country, and drafting him here represents some severe speculation on both his and Francisco Cordero's performance, which has obviously not worked out for James (like almost everything else this season). However, at the very least, he got you 20 strikeouts, and Cordero wasn't taken in the very same round. Jake McGee went three picks after the actual Tampa closer (though nobody knew at the time how it'd work out in that bullpen), a direct challenge to Tom's superior decision-making. He flamed out just as quickly as Manny, but with the added burden of failed promise and prospect buzz, plus you were strategically depending on him for one specific category he would never deliver.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (125)
2: Chris J (116)
3: Chris T (110) [+1]
4: Austin (99) [-1]
5: Mike (93) [+1]
5: Shawn (93) [+2]
7: Kyle (92) [-2]
8: Stew (90) [+1]
9: Tom (85) [+2]
10: Paul (84) [-2]
11: Ryan (80) [-2]
12: Fabian (77) [+1]
13: Joe (62) [-1] Aggregate points this update: 4
14: James (54)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Draft Analysis pt3
Round 10
14: (4) Josh Beckett - SP - 6-2, 79K, 1.86/0.92 (Kyle)
13: (11) Jhoulys Chacin - SP/RP - 8-5, 92K, 3.10/1.15 (Joe)
12: (9) JJ Putz - RP - 21 SV, 32K, 2.65/0.94 (Chris T)
11: (1) Jeremy Hellickson - SP - 7-7, 66K, 3.18/1.16 (Chris J)
10: (2) Francisco Cordero - RP - 15 SV, 26K, 1.57/0.84 (Austin)
9: (6) Carlos Pena - 1B - .227/.348/.462 35-42-0 (Fabian)
8: (13) Mike Napoli - C/1B - .221 /.344/.493 24-25-1 (Mike)
7: (3) Ian Desmond - 2B/SS - .227/.266/.318 31-22-20 (Stew)
6: (5) Nick Markakis - OF - .277/.329/.360 32-30-6 (Shawn)
5: (8) Pablo Sandoval - 1B/3B - .290/.333/.435 15-16-1 (Owen)
4: (14) Vladimir Guerrero - OF - .282/.314/.388 25-28-0 (Tom)
3: (12) Casey McGehee - 3B - .227/.280/.316 23-33-0 (James)
2: (7) Jason Bay - OF - .234/.312/.313 25-16-6 (Paul)
1: (10) Phil Hughes - SP - 0-1, 3K, 13.94/2.23 (Ryan)
The length of Sandoval's injury hurts his ranking here, though he looks to be heading into a decent second-half. I just can't justify putting him ahead of Markakis given the difference in the counting stats and that Owen's playing him at first base. Conversely, Napoli will theoretically be plugged into Mike's catcher slot, where he sees a value boost.
The Desmond ranking feels high, but the stolen bases are significant given current middle-infield output, and the rest of the list below him is equally poor (or hurt, in Sandoval's case). Putz over Cordero for the extra saves and getting him later in the round, but these were two decent closer grabs.
Round 11
14: (2) Adam Lind - 1B/OF - .314/.362/.580 33-49-1 (Mike)
13: (7) Craig Kimbrel - RP - 21 SV, 61K, 2.77/1.15 (Owen)
12: (14) Drew Storen - RP - 19 SV, 32K, 2.90/0.99 (Chris J)
11: (8) Mark Reynolds - 3B - .227/.356/.463 38-38-5 (Paul)
10: (5) Chris Pérez - RP - 19 SV, 20K, 2.45/1.23 (Ryan)
9: (11) Leo Nunez - RP - 21 SV, 35K, 3.31/1.22 (Kyle)
8: (6) Colby Rasmus - OF - .260/.346/.421 48-29-5 (Chris T)
7: (12) Matt Garza - SP - 4-6, 88K, 4.07/1.33 (Stew)
6: (3) Matt Weiters - C - .262/.316/.408 26-33-0 (James)
5: (10) Aaron Hill - 2B - .247/.291/.339 19-30-10 (Shawn)
4: (1) Brad Lidge - RP - 0 SV, 0K, N/A (Tom)
3: (13) Ryan Franklin - RP - 1 SV, 17K, 7.90/1.76 (Austin)
2: (4) Pedro Alvarez - 3B - .208/.283/.304 12-10-1 (Joe)
1: (9) Brandon Lyon - RP - 4 SV, 6K, 11.48/2.40 (Fabian)
Like many of Mike's serendipitous draft picks, Lind was a late steal. The developing Mark Reynolds resurgence is nice for Baltimore and Canada. Of course my pick stopped hitting after April and is probably going to get benched next week for the other outfielder I have who himself was just temporarily benched by his manager for similarly not hitting in June. It only goes down from here.
Lidge over Lyon because at least Lidge on your DL didn't destroy your stats for three weeks. The bottom four were nearly interchangeable, with the major difference being the degree of media schadenfreude on display during their respective collapses or absences.
Round 12
14: (7) Ricky Romero - SP - 7-7, 96K, 2.74/1.16 (Paul)
13: (1) Miguel Montero - C - .277/.349/.471 37-40-1 (Chris J)
12: (8) Daniel Hudson - SP - 9-5, 87K, 3.58/1.19 (Owen)
11: (5) Carlos Quentin - OF - .258/.358/.534 34-49-1 (Shawn)
10: (4) Jaime Garcia - SP - 6-3, 88K, 3.06/1.22 (Kyle)
9: (6) CJ Wilson - SP - 7-3, 97K, 3.17/1.23 (Fabian)
8: (11) Michael Bourn - OF - .282/.351/.390 50-26-33 (Joe)
7: (2) Howie Kendrick - 2B/OF - .301/.358/.479 38-26-8 (Austin)
6: (13) Joel Hanrahan - RP - 22 SV, 31K, 1.24/0.94 (Mike)
5: (10) Kevin Gregg - RP - 14 SV, 24K, 3.26/1.45 (Ryan)
4: (3) Jonny Venters - RP - 3 SV, 51K, 1.29/0.94 (Stew)
3: (12) Grady Sizemore - OF - .225/.294/.445 23-20-0 (James)
2: (14) Aubrey Huff - 1B/OF - .244/.293/.387 24-39-3 (Tom)
1: (9) Rafael Furcal - SS - .212/.246/.273 7-5-2 (Chris T)
It frustrates me to now fully understand how good this draft round was, and how I essentially wasn't part of it. I wanted to take a pitcher this round, but after seeing all the top names go immediately before me (including the crushing Hudson pick) I think I let myself get flustered, and made a panicked positional fill instead of getting someone good. I could have had Hanrahan and maybe halved my blown save total on the year. I am now angry.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (100)
2: Chris J (84) [+3]
3: Austin (76) [-1]
4: Chris T (75) [-1]
5: Kyle (72) [+5]
6: Mike (68) [+3]
7: Shawn (66)
8: Paul (63) [+4]
9: Ryan (62) [-3]
9: Stew (62) [-2]
11: Tom (59) [-7]
12: Joe (58) [+1]
13: Fabian (57) [-2]
14: James (43)
Consider this the ASB, midway through the contest. Owen has a commanding lead, but will it hold up in the second half? Will Tom halt his freefall into the draft dumpster? Who drafts a Cy Young candidate in round 13 and how many more points does he earn than Mike's pick? (Hint: the answer is 13)
14: (4) Josh Beckett - SP - 6-2, 79K, 1.86/0.92 (Kyle)
13: (11) Jhoulys Chacin - SP/RP - 8-5, 92K, 3.10/1.15 (Joe)
12: (9) JJ Putz - RP - 21 SV, 32K, 2.65/0.94 (Chris T)
11: (1) Jeremy Hellickson - SP - 7-7, 66K, 3.18/1.16 (Chris J)
10: (2) Francisco Cordero - RP - 15 SV, 26K, 1.57/0.84 (Austin)
9: (6) Carlos Pena - 1B - .227/.348/.462 35-42-0 (Fabian)
8: (13) Mike Napoli - C/1B - .221 /.344/.493 24-25-1 (Mike)
7: (3) Ian Desmond - 2B/SS - .227/.266/.318 31-22-20 (Stew)
6: (5) Nick Markakis - OF - .277/.329/.360 32-30-6 (Shawn)
5: (8) Pablo Sandoval - 1B/3B - .290/.333/.435 15-16-1 (Owen)
4: (14) Vladimir Guerrero - OF - .282/.314/.388 25-28-0 (Tom)
3: (12) Casey McGehee - 3B - .227/.280/.316 23-33-0 (James)
2: (7) Jason Bay - OF - .234/.312/.313 25-16-6 (Paul)
1: (10) Phil Hughes - SP - 0-1, 3K, 13.94/2.23 (Ryan)
The length of Sandoval's injury hurts his ranking here, though he looks to be heading into a decent second-half. I just can't justify putting him ahead of Markakis given the difference in the counting stats and that Owen's playing him at first base. Conversely, Napoli will theoretically be plugged into Mike's catcher slot, where he sees a value boost.
The Desmond ranking feels high, but the stolen bases are significant given current middle-infield output, and the rest of the list below him is equally poor (or hurt, in Sandoval's case). Putz over Cordero for the extra saves and getting him later in the round, but these were two decent closer grabs.
Round 11
14: (2) Adam Lind - 1B/OF - .314/.362/.580 33-49-1 (Mike)
13: (7) Craig Kimbrel - RP - 21 SV, 61K, 2.77/1.15 (Owen)
12: (14) Drew Storen - RP - 19 SV, 32K, 2.90/0.99 (Chris J)
11: (8) Mark Reynolds - 3B - .227/.356/.463 38-38-5 (Paul)
10: (5) Chris Pérez - RP - 19 SV, 20K, 2.45/1.23 (Ryan)
9: (11) Leo Nunez - RP - 21 SV, 35K, 3.31/1.22 (Kyle)
8: (6) Colby Rasmus - OF - .260/.346/.421 48-29-5 (Chris T)
7: (12) Matt Garza - SP - 4-6, 88K, 4.07/1.33 (Stew)
6: (3) Matt Weiters - C - .262/.316/.408 26-33-0 (James)
5: (10) Aaron Hill - 2B - .247/.291/.339 19-30-10 (Shawn)
4: (1) Brad Lidge - RP - 0 SV, 0K, N/A (Tom)
3: (13) Ryan Franklin - RP - 1 SV, 17K, 7.90/1.76 (Austin)
2: (4) Pedro Alvarez - 3B - .208/.283/.304 12-10-1 (Joe)
1: (9) Brandon Lyon - RP - 4 SV, 6K, 11.48/2.40 (Fabian)
Like many of Mike's serendipitous draft picks, Lind was a late steal. The developing Mark Reynolds resurgence is nice for Baltimore and Canada. Of course my pick stopped hitting after April and is probably going to get benched next week for the other outfielder I have who himself was just temporarily benched by his manager for similarly not hitting in June. It only goes down from here.
Lidge over Lyon because at least Lidge on your DL didn't destroy your stats for three weeks. The bottom four were nearly interchangeable, with the major difference being the degree of media schadenfreude on display during their respective collapses or absences.
Round 12
14: (7) Ricky Romero - SP - 7-7, 96K, 2.74/1.16 (Paul)
13: (1) Miguel Montero - C - .277/.349/.471 37-40-1 (Chris J)
12: (8) Daniel Hudson - SP - 9-5, 87K, 3.58/1.19 (Owen)
11: (5) Carlos Quentin - OF - .258/.358/.534 34-49-1 (Shawn)
10: (4) Jaime Garcia - SP - 6-3, 88K, 3.06/1.22 (Kyle)
9: (6) CJ Wilson - SP - 7-3, 97K, 3.17/1.23 (Fabian)
8: (11) Michael Bourn - OF - .282/.351/.390 50-26-33 (Joe)
7: (2) Howie Kendrick - 2B/OF - .301/.358/.479 38-26-8 (Austin)
6: (13) Joel Hanrahan - RP - 22 SV, 31K, 1.24/0.94 (Mike)
5: (10) Kevin Gregg - RP - 14 SV, 24K, 3.26/1.45 (Ryan)
4: (3) Jonny Venters - RP - 3 SV, 51K, 1.29/0.94 (Stew)
3: (12) Grady Sizemore - OF - .225/.294/.445 23-20-0 (James)
2: (14) Aubrey Huff - 1B/OF - .244/.293/.387 24-39-3 (Tom)
1: (9) Rafael Furcal - SS - .212/.246/.273 7-5-2 (Chris T)
It frustrates me to now fully understand how good this draft round was, and how I essentially wasn't part of it. I wanted to take a pitcher this round, but after seeing all the top names go immediately before me (including the crushing Hudson pick) I think I let myself get flustered, and made a panicked positional fill instead of getting someone good. I could have had Hanrahan and maybe halved my blown save total on the year. I am now angry.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (100)
2: Chris J (84) [+3]
3: Austin (76) [-1]
4: Chris T (75) [-1]
5: Kyle (72) [+5]
6: Mike (68) [+3]
7: Shawn (66)
8: Paul (63) [+4]
9: Ryan (62) [-3]
9: Stew (62) [-2]
11: Tom (59) [-7]
12: Joe (58) [+1]
13: Fabian (57) [-2]
14: James (43)
Consider this the ASB, midway through the contest. Owen has a commanding lead, but will it hold up in the second half? Will Tom halt his freefall into the draft dumpster? Who drafts a Cy Young candidate in round 13 and how many more points does he earn than Mike's pick? (Hint: the answer is 13)
Draft Analysis pt2
Round 7
14: (6) Rickie Weeks - 2B - .290/.360/.498 56-33-7 (Chris T)
13: (13) Trevor Cahill - SP - 8-5, 80K, 3.09/1.29 (Austin)
12: (10) Starlin Castro - SS - .325/.355/.446 43-37-10 (Shawn)
11: (1) Heath Bell - RP - 21 SV, 25K, 2.53/1.13 (Tom)
10: (3) Madison Bumgarner - SP - 4-9, 77K, 3.84/1.36 (James)
9: (7) Jonathan Papelbon - RP - 14 SV, 40K, 3.90/1.17 (Owen)
8: (2) Ryan Dempster - SP - 5-6, 92K, 5.31/1.49 (Mike)
7: (8) Clay Buchholz - SP - 6-3, 60K, 3.48/1.29 (Paul)
6: (4) Stephen Drew - SS - .271/.343/.417 42-42-4 (Joe)
5: (5) Alexei Ramirez - SS - .284/.341/.413 46-35-3 (Ryan)
4: (9) Chad Billingsley - SP - 7-6, 90K, 4.22/1.49 (Fabian)
3: (14) Ted Lilly - SP - 5-7, 68K, 4.63/1.26 (Chris J)
2: (11) Wandy Rodriguez - SP - 5-4, 69K, 3.21/1.31 (Kyle)
1: (12) Alex Rios - OF - .224/.275/.332 36-20-5 (Stew)
I'll take the victory lap here for the middle infielder slugging .500 ahead of a monster lineup. This is an interesting round for the shortstop comparisons, to note how Ramirez and Drew are basically the same player right now. Starlin Castro is the surprise of the group clearly, though I'm not sure he can sustain the BA that's sustaining his OBP.
I hated Austin's Cahill pick at the time, but it's looking like a worthwhile investment after the fact, especially considering my later pick of Brett Anderson and how that's worked out. Based on preseason ranks, Alex Rios should have been the steal of the round, so I'm happy to see karmic comeuppance for Stew's Bautista pick.
Ryan Dempster may look high on this list when comparing his ratio stats to the other pitchers, but I've decided that the 20-30 strikeout difference is significant now and will be more significant when he ends the year at his usual 200 K. He's also been better lately than at the start of the season, so that gets the nod over an injured Buchholz and the borderline guys at the bottom of the round.
Round 8
14: (1) Curtis Granderson - OF - .276/.360/.572 68-55-12 (Chris J)
13: (14) Michael Young - 2B/3B - .323/.358/.481 34-53-4 (Tom)
12: (2) Shane Victorino - OF - .292/.359/.498 47-29-12 (Austin)
11: (8) John Axford - RP - 20 SV, 46K, 2.55/1.33 (Owen)
10: (5) Huston Street - RP - 23 SV, 32K, 3.53/1.18 (Shawn)
9: (13) Colby Lewis - SP - 6-7, 77K, 4.44/1.26 (Mike)
8: (12) Drew Stubbs - OF - .255/.326/.404 54-32-23 (James)
7: (3) Martin Prado - 2B/3B - .277/.324/.438 36-33-2 (Stew)
6: (7) Francisco Rodriguez - RP - 20 SV, 41K, 3.65/1.46 (Paul)
5: (10) BJ Upton - OF - .224/.311/.390 40-41-20 (Ryan)
4: (11) Ricky Nolasco - SP - 4-4, 77K, 4.44/1.37 (Joe)
3: (9) Brett Anderson - SP - 3-6, 61K, 4.00/1.33 (Chris T)
2: (4) Andrew Bailey - RP - 5 SV, 7K, 0.96/0.75 (Kyle)
1: (6) Edinson Volquez - SP - 4-3, 75K, 5.77/1.68 (Fabian)
Not much to say here, other than that being hurt (Anderson, Bailey) is still better than actively harming your team (Volquez). In overall fantasy Anderson hasn't been awful, since he compiled those strikeouts fairly quickly without destroying my ratios, and has allowed me to start other people in the weeks he's missed. As a singular pick, however, there's obvious disappointment, and who knows whether he'll recover to be useful again this season.
I'm crediting Chris with the best pick despite being at the top of the round because Granderson wasn't an obvious choice. In overall value, I think the guys slugging .480 are always just a little better than mid-tier closers, but Axford and Street weren't bad picks at all. Colby Lewis was my big question mark in terms of ranking. I gave Mike a little extra credit for picking at the back end of the round, and I think his category contributions narrowly edge those of Stubbs and Upton.
Round 9
14: (11) Ben Zobrist - 2B/OF - .271/.351/.481 52-40-7 (Kyle)
13: (14) Chris Young - OF - .257/.324/.486 51-42-9 (Chris J)
12: (5) Tim Hudson - SP - 6-6, 70K, 3.51/1.11 (Ryan)
11: (10) José Valverde - RP - 18 SV, 32K, 2.43/1.23 (Shawn)
10: (7) Jonathan Sanchez - SP - 4-5, 92K, 3.81/1.42 (Owen)
9: (6) Aramis Ramirez - 3B - .289/.337/.446 39-37-0 (Chris T)
8: (8) Billy Butler - 1B - .302/.402/.435 33-34-1 (Paul)
7: (13) Corey Hart - OF - .271/.355/.480 25-22-2 (Austin)
6: (9) Brett Gardner - OF - .281/.360/.420 39-18-16 (Fabian)
5: (12) John Danks - SP - 3-8, 65K, 4.21/1.35 (Stew)
4: (4) Geovany Soto - C - .227/.322/.416 22-18-0 (Joe)
3: (1) Jorge Posada - C - .234/.327/.411 17-25-0 (Tom)
2: (2) Matt Thornton - RP - 2 SV, 27K, 3.86/1.79 (Mike)
1: (3) Delmon Young - OF - .256/.281/.324 21-20-1 (James)
Brutal first four picks down there at the bottom. I ranked the catchers above Thornton and Young because they still have some room for improvement, at a scarce position. Hart's coming into some nice stats but is penalized for missing a quarter of the season (and I'm kicking myself for not picking him up when I had the opportunity).
This list probably looks different five games ago (or even yesterday) when Aramis Ramirez's SLG was at .409 instead of .446. That said, he's a notorious second-half batter, and his contributions at a battered position still beat Butler's at 1B, or Gardner.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (70)
2: Austin (56) [+3]
3: Chris T (54)
4: Tom (49) [+3]
5: Chris J (48) [+6]
6: Ryan (46) [-1]
7: Stew (44) [-5]
7: Shawn (44) [+7]
9: Mike (40) [-1]
10: Kyle (39) [-2]
11: Fabian (38) [-7]
12: Paul (36)
13: Joe (35) [-5]
14: James (31) [-1]
14: (6) Rickie Weeks - 2B - .290/.360/.498 56-33-7 (Chris T)
13: (13) Trevor Cahill - SP - 8-5, 80K, 3.09/1.29 (Austin)
12: (10) Starlin Castro - SS - .325/.355/.446 43-37-10 (Shawn)
11: (1) Heath Bell - RP - 21 SV, 25K, 2.53/1.13 (Tom)
10: (3) Madison Bumgarner - SP - 4-9, 77K, 3.84/1.36 (James)
9: (7) Jonathan Papelbon - RP - 14 SV, 40K, 3.90/1.17 (Owen)
8: (2) Ryan Dempster - SP - 5-6, 92K, 5.31/1.49 (Mike)
7: (8) Clay Buchholz - SP - 6-3, 60K, 3.48/1.29 (Paul)
6: (4) Stephen Drew - SS - .271/.343/.417 42-42-4 (Joe)
5: (5) Alexei Ramirez - SS - .284/.341/.413 46-35-3 (Ryan)
4: (9) Chad Billingsley - SP - 7-6, 90K, 4.22/1.49 (Fabian)
3: (14) Ted Lilly - SP - 5-7, 68K, 4.63/1.26 (Chris J)
2: (11) Wandy Rodriguez - SP - 5-4, 69K, 3.21/1.31 (Kyle)
1: (12) Alex Rios - OF - .224/.275/.332 36-20-5 (Stew)
I'll take the victory lap here for the middle infielder slugging .500 ahead of a monster lineup. This is an interesting round for the shortstop comparisons, to note how Ramirez and Drew are basically the same player right now. Starlin Castro is the surprise of the group clearly, though I'm not sure he can sustain the BA that's sustaining his OBP.
I hated Austin's Cahill pick at the time, but it's looking like a worthwhile investment after the fact, especially considering my later pick of Brett Anderson and how that's worked out. Based on preseason ranks, Alex Rios should have been the steal of the round, so I'm happy to see karmic comeuppance for Stew's Bautista pick.
Ryan Dempster may look high on this list when comparing his ratio stats to the other pitchers, but I've decided that the 20-30 strikeout difference is significant now and will be more significant when he ends the year at his usual 200 K. He's also been better lately than at the start of the season, so that gets the nod over an injured Buchholz and the borderline guys at the bottom of the round.
Round 8
14: (1) Curtis Granderson - OF - .276/.360/.572 68-55-12 (Chris J)
13: (14) Michael Young - 2B/3B - .323/.358/.481 34-53-4 (Tom)
12: (2) Shane Victorino - OF - .292/.359/.498 47-29-12 (Austin)
11: (8) John Axford - RP - 20 SV, 46K, 2.55/1.33 (Owen)
10: (5) Huston Street - RP - 23 SV, 32K, 3.53/1.18 (Shawn)
9: (13) Colby Lewis - SP - 6-7, 77K, 4.44/1.26 (Mike)
8: (12) Drew Stubbs - OF - .255/.326/.404 54-32-23 (James)
7: (3) Martin Prado - 2B/3B - .277/.324/.438 36-33-2 (Stew)
6: (7) Francisco Rodriguez - RP - 20 SV, 41K, 3.65/1.46 (Paul)
5: (10) BJ Upton - OF - .224/.311/.390 40-41-20 (Ryan)
4: (11) Ricky Nolasco - SP - 4-4, 77K, 4.44/1.37 (Joe)
3: (9) Brett Anderson - SP - 3-6, 61K, 4.00/1.33 (Chris T)
2: (4) Andrew Bailey - RP - 5 SV, 7K, 0.96/0.75 (Kyle)
1: (6) Edinson Volquez - SP - 4-3, 75K, 5.77/1.68 (Fabian)
Not much to say here, other than that being hurt (Anderson, Bailey) is still better than actively harming your team (Volquez). In overall fantasy Anderson hasn't been awful, since he compiled those strikeouts fairly quickly without destroying my ratios, and has allowed me to start other people in the weeks he's missed. As a singular pick, however, there's obvious disappointment, and who knows whether he'll recover to be useful again this season.
I'm crediting Chris with the best pick despite being at the top of the round because Granderson wasn't an obvious choice. In overall value, I think the guys slugging .480 are always just a little better than mid-tier closers, but Axford and Street weren't bad picks at all. Colby Lewis was my big question mark in terms of ranking. I gave Mike a little extra credit for picking at the back end of the round, and I think his category contributions narrowly edge those of Stubbs and Upton.
Round 9
14: (11) Ben Zobrist - 2B/OF - .271/.351/.481 52-40-7 (Kyle)
13: (14) Chris Young - OF - .257/.324/.486 51-42-9 (Chris J)
12: (5) Tim Hudson - SP - 6-6, 70K, 3.51/1.11 (Ryan)
11: (10) José Valverde - RP - 18 SV, 32K, 2.43/1.23 (Shawn)
10: (7) Jonathan Sanchez - SP - 4-5, 92K, 3.81/1.42 (Owen)
9: (6) Aramis Ramirez - 3B - .289/.337/.446 39-37-0 (Chris T)
8: (8) Billy Butler - 1B - .302/.402/.435 33-34-1 (Paul)
7: (13) Corey Hart - OF - .271/.355/.480 25-22-2 (Austin)
6: (9) Brett Gardner - OF - .281/.360/.420 39-18-16 (Fabian)
5: (12) John Danks - SP - 3-8, 65K, 4.21/1.35 (Stew)
4: (4) Geovany Soto - C - .227/.322/.416 22-18-0 (Joe)
3: (1) Jorge Posada - C - .234/.327/.411 17-25-0 (Tom)
2: (2) Matt Thornton - RP - 2 SV, 27K, 3.86/1.79 (Mike)
1: (3) Delmon Young - OF - .256/.281/.324 21-20-1 (James)
Brutal first four picks down there at the bottom. I ranked the catchers above Thornton and Young because they still have some room for improvement, at a scarce position. Hart's coming into some nice stats but is penalized for missing a quarter of the season (and I'm kicking myself for not picking him up when I had the opportunity).
This list probably looks different five games ago (or even yesterday) when Aramis Ramirez's SLG was at .409 instead of .446. That said, he's a notorious second-half batter, and his contributions at a battered position still beat Butler's at 1B, or Gardner.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (70)
2: Austin (56) [+3]
3: Chris T (54)
4: Tom (49) [+3]
5: Chris J (48) [+6]
6: Ryan (46) [-1]
7: Stew (44) [-5]
7: Shawn (44) [+7]
9: Mike (40) [-1]
10: Kyle (39) [-2]
11: Fabian (38) [-7]
12: Paul (36)
13: Joe (35) [-5]
14: James (31) [-1]
Monday, June 27, 2011
2011 Fantasy Draft Analysis, hindsight version (pt1)
I've got an empty afternoon, so I've decided I'm going to determine who had the best and worst draft.
Methodology: Going round by round, I'll list the current 2011 stats of each player taken, and rank them in the subjective order I believe represents best to worst. Player availability and positional scarcity/relativism will be factored in, so snagging Jose Bautista early in round 1 (4) doesn't necessarily guarantee the best pick in the round, since somebody later on could have made a smarter choice within the remaining player pool (however with lower overall stats). Top pick gets 14 points, next 13, next 12, down to one point. The highest aggregate sum will be the "winner" of the draft and earn himself receipt of some mild trash talking if he isn't in first place in the hybrid standings.
Format
[points earned]: (number of pick within round) Player Name - Position - [BA/OBP/SLG R-RBI-SB] or [W-L or SV, K, ERA/WHIP] (owner)
Round 4
14: (8) José Reyes - SS - .341/.385/.514 61-32-28 (Owen)
13: (3) José Bautista - OF/3B - .325/.468/.655 60-48-5 (Stew)
12: (9) Justin Verlander - SP - 10-3, 124K, 2.38/0.84 (Chris T)
11: (1) Kevin Youkilis - 1B/3B - .275/.394/.494 46-55-1 (Chris J)
10: (7) Victor Martinez - C - .333/.383/.494 35-44-0 (Paul)
9: (2) Andrew McCutchen - OF - .285/.388/.463 45-39-15 (Austin)
8: (11) Andre Ethier - OF - .317/.389/.461 38-37-0 (Joe)
7: (6) Ryan Howard - 1B - .253/.352/.484 39-62-1 (Fabian)
6: (12) Hunter Pence - OF - .315/.356/.490 35-52-4 (James)
5: (13) Ian Kinsler - 2B - .235/.352/.393 52-25-15 (Mike)
4: (4) Matt Cain - SP - 7-4, 89K, 3.22/1.11 (Kyle)
3: (10) Jayson Werth - OF - .228/.334/.399 36-27-10 (Ryan)
2: (14) Brandon Phillips - 2B - .291/.345/.405 48-41-4 (Tom)
1: (5) Buster Posey - C/1B - .284/.368/.389 17-21-3 (Shawn)
José Bautista is obviously playing out of his mind, but in the hindsight analysis I'm having a hard time crediting Stew for the pick more than Owen's gutsier selection of Reyes in the middle of the round. After multiple injury-plagued and power-depleted seasons, Owen (after not keeping him) went back to the well one more time, and is being rewarded with a mess of stolen bases on top of OBP/SLG production from the SS slot higher than the first basemen and outfielders that went in the same round.
I struggled with the Matt Cain pick because while Cain's having a very nice Cain-like season, he came off the board ahead of Verlander. Yahoo's ranking system has him sandwiched between Brian Wilson and Josh Johnson, on the second page. Between RP and DL is no place for your best pitcher.
However, using the hindsight rule, the Cain pick still works out better than Jayson Werth, Brandon Phillips, and Buster Posey, all of whom I think are playing at free agency levels or worse right now.
Round 5
14: (7) Jacoby Ellsbury - OF - .303/.366/.461 55-39-25 (Owen)
13: (2) Jered Weaver - SP - 9-4, 106K, 1.97/0.93 (Mike)
12: (1) Cole Hamels - SP - 9-4, 108K, 2.49/0.96 (Tom)
11: (12) Shaun Marcum - SP - 7-2, 86K, 2.95/1.06 (Stew)
10: (6) Zack Greinke - SP - 7-2, 80K, 4.77/1.16 (Chris T)
9: (9) Brian McCann - C - .300/.379/.512 27-43-2 (Fabian)
8: (10) Yovani Gallardo - SP - 9-4, 94K, 3.92/1.41 (Shawn)
7: (5) Mat Latos - SP - 4-8, 76K, 4.22/1.40 (Ryan)
6: (13) Ichiro Suzuki - OF - .273/.319/.326 40-21-19 (Austin)
5: (3) Roy Oswalt - SP - 4-6, 42K, 3.79/1.33 (James)
4: (11) Carlos Marmol - RP - 16 SV, 45K, 2.62/1.28 (Kyle)
3: (4) Dan Uggla - 2B - .177/.244/.334 33-27-1 (Joe)
2: (14) Derek Jeter - SS - .260/.324/.324 39-20-7 (Chris J)
1: (8) Kendrys Morales - 1B - .000/.000/.000 0-0-0 (Paul)
This was a strange round, neatly divided into seven good picks and seven poor ones, made easier by ranking from the bottom up. Morales is clearly the goat of the draft, after having another season-ending surgery. There was a fierce battle between Jeter and Uggla for next worst, but I decided that at least Uggla still has some upside, whereas this is probably the true value of Jeter to fantasy. Ichiro and Marmol had another contest of futility, with Ichiro's speed winning versus the fact that there were 31.5 remaining closers available.
Kudos to Owen for winning the round yet again by listening to the tintinabulation of his giant steel balls and taking Ellsbury way before every single draft guide suggested he should go. Perhaps he's benefitting from unsustainable half-seasons, but until Ellsbury stops hitting homeruns and Reyes pulls six hamstrings he'll be enjoying Ethier-level rate stats along with league-leading stolen base totals.
Mike and Tom benefitted more from draft position than sage picks but I still had to credit them for the right calls (making up for last round's second basemen) above the other pitchers and positional players taken this round. Greinke's ERA looks awful, but under the hood his peripherals are great, and he's already matched Marcum's win/strikeout/WHIP production despite missing a month. Marcum still gets the higher nod for the ERA and the later pick, though.
Round 6
14: (10) Paul Konerko - 1B - .324/.395/.588 39-60-1 (Ryan)
13: (4) Jay Bruce - OF - .274/.346/.507 46-49-6 (Kyle)
12: (8) Mike Stanton - OF - .259/.341/.533 39-44-1 (Owen)
11: (6) Elvis Andrus - SS - .278/.323/.347 45-30-22 (Fabian)
10: (11) Mariano Rivera - RP - 20 SV, 26K, 1.78/0.99 (Joe)
9: (2) Brian Wilson - RP - 23 SV, 35K, 2.50/1.36 (Austin)
8: (14) Jimmy Rollins - SS - .260/.332/.378 46-31-15 (Tom)
7: (3) Max Scherzer - SP - 9-3, 83K, 4.61/1.44 (Stew)
6: (9) Carlos Santana - C - .228/.359/.407 34-33-3 (Chris T)
5: (1) Neftali Feliz - RP - 14 SV, 19K, 3.18/1.31 (Chris J)
4: (7) Joakim Soria - RP - 13 SV, 31K, 4.24/1.26 (Paul)
3: (13) Nick Swisher - OF - .245/.366/.412 35-38-1 (Mike)
2: (5) Francisco Liriano - SP - 4-7, 61K, 4.98/1.37 (Shawn)
1: (12) Jonathan Broxton - RP - 7 SV, 10K, 5.68/1.89 (James)
With the closer rush in a full and desperately early swing, I had a hard time evaluating what I think were relative values beween RP and all other positions. The sucktitude of the closer rush battled with the mediocrity of some of the positional picks here.
Ryan is the clear winner with Konerko, getting elite production at a now-depleted position. Stanton and Bruce are perfectly decent power outfielders with tons of upside to improve upon their already serviceable numbers. Andrus is good counting stats at a weak position. The rest of the round is kind of a mess.
Scores after rounds 4-6:
1: Owen (40)
2: Stew (31)
3: Chris T (28)
4: Fabian (27)
5: Austin (24)
5: Ryan (24)
7: Tom (22)
8: Mike (21)
8: Kyle (21)
8: Joe (21)
11: Chris J (18)
12: Paul (15)
13: James (12)
14: Shawn (11)
Methodology: Going round by round, I'll list the current 2011 stats of each player taken, and rank them in the subjective order I believe represents best to worst. Player availability and positional scarcity/relativism will be factored in, so snagging Jose Bautista early in round 1 (4) doesn't necessarily guarantee the best pick in the round, since somebody later on could have made a smarter choice within the remaining player pool (however with lower overall stats). Top pick gets 14 points, next 13, next 12, down to one point. The highest aggregate sum will be the "winner" of the draft and earn himself receipt of some mild trash talking if he isn't in first place in the hybrid standings.
Format
[points earned]: (number of pick within round) Player Name - Position - [BA/OBP/SLG R-RBI-SB] or [W-L or SV, K, ERA/WHIP] (owner)
Round 4
14: (8) José Reyes - SS - .341/.385/.514 61-32-28 (Owen)
13: (3) José Bautista - OF/3B - .325/.468/.655 60-48-5 (Stew)
12: (9) Justin Verlander - SP - 10-3, 124K, 2.38/0.84 (Chris T)
11: (1) Kevin Youkilis - 1B/3B - .275/.394/.494 46-55-1 (Chris J)
10: (7) Victor Martinez - C - .333/.383/.494 35-44-0 (Paul)
9: (2) Andrew McCutchen - OF - .285/.388/.463 45-39-15 (Austin)
8: (11) Andre Ethier - OF - .317/.389/.461 38-37-0 (Joe)
7: (6) Ryan Howard - 1B - .253/.352/.484 39-62-1 (Fabian)
6: (12) Hunter Pence - OF - .315/.356/.490 35-52-4 (James)
5: (13) Ian Kinsler - 2B - .235/.352/.393 52-25-15 (Mike)
4: (4) Matt Cain - SP - 7-4, 89K, 3.22/1.11 (Kyle)
3: (10) Jayson Werth - OF - .228/.334/.399 36-27-10 (Ryan)
2: (14) Brandon Phillips - 2B - .291/.345/.405 48-41-4 (Tom)
1: (5) Buster Posey - C/1B - .284/.368/.389 17-21-3 (Shawn)
José Bautista is obviously playing out of his mind, but in the hindsight analysis I'm having a hard time crediting Stew for the pick more than Owen's gutsier selection of Reyes in the middle of the round. After multiple injury-plagued and power-depleted seasons, Owen (after not keeping him) went back to the well one more time, and is being rewarded with a mess of stolen bases on top of OBP/SLG production from the SS slot higher than the first basemen and outfielders that went in the same round.
I struggled with the Matt Cain pick because while Cain's having a very nice Cain-like season, he came off the board ahead of Verlander. Yahoo's ranking system has him sandwiched between Brian Wilson and Josh Johnson, on the second page. Between RP and DL is no place for your best pitcher.
However, using the hindsight rule, the Cain pick still works out better than Jayson Werth, Brandon Phillips, and Buster Posey, all of whom I think are playing at free agency levels or worse right now.
Round 5
14: (7) Jacoby Ellsbury - OF - .303/.366/.461 55-39-25 (Owen)
13: (2) Jered Weaver - SP - 9-4, 106K, 1.97/0.93 (Mike)
12: (1) Cole Hamels - SP - 9-4, 108K, 2.49/0.96 (Tom)
11: (12) Shaun Marcum - SP - 7-2, 86K, 2.95/1.06 (Stew)
10: (6) Zack Greinke - SP - 7-2, 80K, 4.77/1.16 (Chris T)
9: (9) Brian McCann - C - .300/.379/.512 27-43-2 (Fabian)
8: (10) Yovani Gallardo - SP - 9-4, 94K, 3.92/1.41 (Shawn)
7: (5) Mat Latos - SP - 4-8, 76K, 4.22/1.40 (Ryan)
6: (13) Ichiro Suzuki - OF - .273/.319/.326 40-21-19 (Austin)
5: (3) Roy Oswalt - SP - 4-6, 42K, 3.79/1.33 (James)
4: (11) Carlos Marmol - RP - 16 SV, 45K, 2.62/1.28 (Kyle)
3: (4) Dan Uggla - 2B - .177/.244/.334 33-27-1 (Joe)
2: (14) Derek Jeter - SS - .260/.324/.324 39-20-7 (Chris J)
1: (8) Kendrys Morales - 1B - .000/.000/.000 0-0-0 (Paul)
This was a strange round, neatly divided into seven good picks and seven poor ones, made easier by ranking from the bottom up. Morales is clearly the goat of the draft, after having another season-ending surgery. There was a fierce battle between Jeter and Uggla for next worst, but I decided that at least Uggla still has some upside, whereas this is probably the true value of Jeter to fantasy. Ichiro and Marmol had another contest of futility, with Ichiro's speed winning versus the fact that there were 31.5 remaining closers available.
Kudos to Owen for winning the round yet again by listening to the tintinabulation of his giant steel balls and taking Ellsbury way before every single draft guide suggested he should go. Perhaps he's benefitting from unsustainable half-seasons, but until Ellsbury stops hitting homeruns and Reyes pulls six hamstrings he'll be enjoying Ethier-level rate stats along with league-leading stolen base totals.
Mike and Tom benefitted more from draft position than sage picks but I still had to credit them for the right calls (making up for last round's second basemen) above the other pitchers and positional players taken this round. Greinke's ERA looks awful, but under the hood his peripherals are great, and he's already matched Marcum's win/strikeout/WHIP production despite missing a month. Marcum still gets the higher nod for the ERA and the later pick, though.
Round 6
14: (10) Paul Konerko - 1B - .324/.395/.588 39-60-1 (Ryan)
13: (4) Jay Bruce - OF - .274/.346/.507 46-49-6 (Kyle)
12: (8) Mike Stanton - OF - .259/.341/.533 39-44-1 (Owen)
11: (6) Elvis Andrus - SS - .278/.323/.347 45-30-22 (Fabian)
10: (11) Mariano Rivera - RP - 20 SV, 26K, 1.78/0.99 (Joe)
9: (2) Brian Wilson - RP - 23 SV, 35K, 2.50/1.36 (Austin)
8: (14) Jimmy Rollins - SS - .260/.332/.378 46-31-15 (Tom)
7: (3) Max Scherzer - SP - 9-3, 83K, 4.61/1.44 (Stew)
6: (9) Carlos Santana - C - .228/.359/.407 34-33-3 (Chris T)
5: (1) Neftali Feliz - RP - 14 SV, 19K, 3.18/1.31 (Chris J)
4: (7) Joakim Soria - RP - 13 SV, 31K, 4.24/1.26 (Paul)
3: (13) Nick Swisher - OF - .245/.366/.412 35-38-1 (Mike)
2: (5) Francisco Liriano - SP - 4-7, 61K, 4.98/1.37 (Shawn)
1: (12) Jonathan Broxton - RP - 7 SV, 10K, 5.68/1.89 (James)
With the closer rush in a full and desperately early swing, I had a hard time evaluating what I think were relative values beween RP and all other positions. The sucktitude of the closer rush battled with the mediocrity of some of the positional picks here.
Ryan is the clear winner with Konerko, getting elite production at a now-depleted position. Stanton and Bruce are perfectly decent power outfielders with tons of upside to improve upon their already serviceable numbers. Andrus is good counting stats at a weak position. The rest of the round is kind of a mess.
Scores after rounds 4-6:
1: Owen (40)
2: Stew (31)
3: Chris T (28)
4: Fabian (27)
5: Austin (24)
5: Ryan (24)
7: Tom (22)
8: Mike (21)
8: Kyle (21)
8: Joe (21)
11: Chris J (18)
12: Paul (15)
13: James (12)
14: Shawn (11)
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Either For or Against
I read an interesting article this afternoon on the NYT's Sunday Magazine site about a family vacation to Disney World from the perspective of an academic Generation Y stoner. The article itself touches on the ruthless ideology and probably illegal backroom dealings required to establish a corporate and social behemoth like Disney World, the disjunction of parenting interests vs. child entertainment, and the neurotic demands of drug addiction and its chemical fulfillment under the auspices of hostile park security. Under the hood there's an interesting duality of adult vs. child leisure and wish fulfillment, and some parallels between the marijuana consumption culture and the Disney consumption culture, and some notes on the theme of modern parenting. This is how I read it, and it was engaging on multiple levels.
Above the hood, a reader not looking for nuance would note that the article was about a pothead father who couldn't go two hours without smoking up, and risked his security and the happiness of his children to sate his lazy stoner needs, and that any mention of the history of Walt Disney's political maneuvering is just filler between paragraphs explaining the best locations in the park to blaze. On a lark, I clicked on the comments thread for the article to gauge the responses, and they seemed to universally fall into two camps: Pro-weed acolytes who thought this was a lyrical American masterpiece, and uptight parents who were shocked, SHOCKED at both the casual disinterest in the author's/subject's family's wellbeing and that the Times would promote weed culture in any medium but a police blotter.
The duality of extreme pro- and con- has been standard practice in political debate for quite a while now, but it's interesting to see it pop up in so many incidental places. For example, earlier this week, Arstechnica released their review of the new Duke Nukem Forever game. While it's been universally panned for poor gaming performance and bad mechanics, Ars writer Ben Kuchera went a step further to decry the tenor of the comedic attempts in the game. I'm just going to assume anybody who reads this is familiar with the original Duke games and doesn't need to be brought up to speed. Kuchera goes a step further and calls 3D Realms and Gearbox to task for substituting offensive references for humor.
Conversely, some posters crawled out from the shadows to defend the author and explain that while the original Duke, with all his objectification of women and glorification of murder, was still amusing, this new Duke is a step too far. That it's horrific and unfunny and that celebrating it reveals some deep psychological issues on behalf of the game's loudest advocates.
Again, I ended up taking a middle (nuanced, snobbish?) road here, responding to both sides with:
Above the hood, a reader not looking for nuance would note that the article was about a pothead father who couldn't go two hours without smoking up, and risked his security and the happiness of his children to sate his lazy stoner needs, and that any mention of the history of Walt Disney's political maneuvering is just filler between paragraphs explaining the best locations in the park to blaze. On a lark, I clicked on the comments thread for the article to gauge the responses, and they seemed to universally fall into two camps: Pro-weed acolytes who thought this was a lyrical American masterpiece, and uptight parents who were shocked, SHOCKED at both the casual disinterest in the author's/subject's family's wellbeing and that the Times would promote weed culture in any medium but a police blotter.
The duality of extreme pro- and con- has been standard practice in political debate for quite a while now, but it's interesting to see it pop up in so many incidental places. For example, earlier this week, Arstechnica released their review of the new Duke Nukem Forever game. While it's been universally panned for poor gaming performance and bad mechanics, Ars writer Ben Kuchera went a step further to decry the tenor of the comedic attempts in the game. I'm just going to assume anybody who reads this is familiar with the original Duke games and doesn't need to be brought up to speed. Kuchera goes a step further and calls 3D Realms and Gearbox to task for substituting offensive references for humor.
Just in case you didn't feel like the game had adequately rubbed your nose in its horrific depiction of women, Duke arrives at a point where two nude ladies promise to lose their pregnancy weight from bearing their alien children, and they plead with you to let them live. (These are the same characters who performed fellatio on you during the beginning sequences of the game.)Funny? I guess that depends on whether you're a Ted Nugent fan or not. I've watched gameplay videos, including the above referenced section of the game, and I feel rather safe labeling it as significantly unfunny. Perhaps it says something about my delicate sensibilities, but I have difficulty finding room for laughs in a mass-alien-rape-lair, even though in the past I've enjoyed other outlets wrestling humor from war, genocide, murder, and torture. Reading the comments on this article, I apparently fall into the same camp as Kuchera and all the "PC pussies" who need to grow up and learn to love the Duke. That I apparently don't get the series, don't understand why it's funny, that it's all ok if it's absurd, that over-the-top is inherently belly-aching fun on its own merits. There's a whole subculture of these folk, the kneejerk anti-PC cult.
The only way past this section of the game is to kill both women.
In another scene, a woman sobs and asks for her father. You see, the women in the alien craft are being forcibly impregnated by the aliens, and during your journey, you hear a mixture of screams and sexual noises. After I accidentally blew up a few of these female victims in a firefight, Duke made a joke about abortion.
Conversely, some posters crawled out from the shadows to defend the author and explain that while the original Duke, with all his objectification of women and glorification of murder, was still amusing, this new Duke is a step too far. That it's horrific and unfunny and that celebrating it reveals some deep psychological issues on behalf of the game's loudest advocates.
Again, I ended up taking a middle (nuanced, snobbish?) road here, responding to both sides with:
I think what tends to be missed, generally by the segment of the gaming audience that gets off on the anti-PC preening, is that the original Duke Nukem was, in addition to being grotesque and crude, also somewhat clever. It effectively lampooned a major cultural trend at the time, the Hollywood machismo movement. Part of its success is that it was simultaneously over the top AND bitingly subversive.In a thread with 300 responses, the only ones that referenced my words were "Well said" and "QFT" without further engagement. Perhaps searching for deeper meaning in a Duke Nukem game was a fool's errand, but I retire comfortably knowing there were at least two people reading Ars who walked my same moderated middle road, and hopefully more silent ones who similarly refrained from bringing judgment down upon a smoker dad and his summer vacation in a vaguely fascist wonderland.
If Duke Nukem 3D was Scream, then something like Bulletstorm is its Scary Movie, which makes DNF a Uwe Boll sequel: Something that manages to steal superficial elements of previous genre successes and then totally miss the point of the exercise by not having any kind of message beyond id-fueled explosions and masculinity.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
EA vs. The World
Recent news indicates that EA is pulling its AAA titles from Valve's online distribution system (Steam) and offering them exclusively on EA's new digital download service, Origin. Before explaining why I desperately hate this development, I want to briefly describe the interesting history of Origin's origin.
It began as a game developer founded by the Garriott brothers in 1983 after they severed ties with Sierra On-Line to continue publishing their Ultima line. Over the next fifteen years, they became one of the darlings of PC gaming, creating some of the most memorable titles of the era: Ultimas 3-Online, Wing Commander, Privateer, and System Shock. The uncommon success of the company was likely due to the roster of developers they had in-house that resembled something like the mid-90's Expos: John Romero (id Software), Raymond Benson (MicroProse), Tom Chilton (Blizzard), and Warren Spector (Ion Storm) being the most notable names.
Like many successful gaming ventures, the company was bought out by EA and pulverized into dust. Once they tasted the sweet nectar of subscription fees, EA limited Origin to only supporting the Ultima Online series. By this point most of the talent had fled to greener pastures. Origin was shut down in 2004, some few months before Tom Chilton's release of World of Warcraft, which changed the face of online gaming.
The name has now been revived as EA's Steam-like download service. They even kept the spirit of the original logo, a curiously thoughtful touch on an otherwise ruthless industry move to leverage EA's publishing catalog to corner the digital download market. Crysis 2 has been pulled from Steam (precisely one year after EA's Crysis sale in the summer of 2010) and they've made announcements indicating that major titles like Battlefield 3, Fifa 2012, and possibly Mass Effect 3 will all be exclusive to the Origin service.
Fuck that noise.
Let me state that I'm not against EA opening their own store with their own desktop app. EA and Stardock and whoever else feels like dipping their toes into the digital pool can go have fun. However, the exclusivity bothers the fuck out of me, and there are many arguments for why I refuse to download BF3 through Origin:
1) I happen to like Steam, and my entire gaming library is now seamlessly integrated into Steam, so I'm not using another service. Steam is convenient. It offers viable voice chat. It's unobtrustive and just works, unlike (say) the EA Download Manager, which wormed its way into my startup config files and required constant manual removal. I have no faith that Origin will Just Work, and zero faith that it'll only run when I want it to.
2) EA has demonstrated a willingness to shut down its online servers the moment that game stops selling retail. I have no faith that Origin will permit lifetime redownloads, or that they'll decrypt your library if the service shuts down. This is not a company which prioritizes customer service.
3) EA is a festering pile of shit. They're already carving up BF3 into retailer-exclusive bonuses. Unlike when they did this for Dragon Age, this will materially affect online multiplayer competitive balance. Snipers with a flash suppressor will have a measured advantage in a large battlefield. And now they're withholding major title releases from the biggest distributors in the business? As much as I'm salivating for BF3 and ME3, I'd refuse to buy just out of spite. Or, perhaps better, I'll wait a few months and buy used, so they don't see a single fucking dime of my money.
I'm hoping that the internet backlash against these practices will put EA games back on Steam, but I suspect (and I suspect EA suspects) that nerd internet rage won't prevent them from shelling out $60 on launch day, boxed, digital, or otherwise. Even hardened Steam zealots will find a way to justify buying Mass Effect 3.
I guess I can always buy a physical copy...
It began as a game developer founded by the Garriott brothers in 1983 after they severed ties with Sierra On-Line to continue publishing their Ultima line. Over the next fifteen years, they became one of the darlings of PC gaming, creating some of the most memorable titles of the era: Ultimas 3-Online, Wing Commander, Privateer, and System Shock. The uncommon success of the company was likely due to the roster of developers they had in-house that resembled something like the mid-90's Expos: John Romero (id Software), Raymond Benson (MicroProse), Tom Chilton (Blizzard), and Warren Spector (Ion Storm) being the most notable names.
Like many successful gaming ventures, the company was bought out by EA and pulverized into dust. Once they tasted the sweet nectar of subscription fees, EA limited Origin to only supporting the Ultima Online series. By this point most of the talent had fled to greener pastures. Origin was shut down in 2004, some few months before Tom Chilton's release of World of Warcraft, which changed the face of online gaming.
The name has now been revived as EA's Steam-like download service. They even kept the spirit of the original logo, a curiously thoughtful touch on an otherwise ruthless industry move to leverage EA's publishing catalog to corner the digital download market. Crysis 2 has been pulled from Steam (precisely one year after EA's Crysis sale in the summer of 2010) and they've made announcements indicating that major titles like Battlefield 3, Fifa 2012, and possibly Mass Effect 3 will all be exclusive to the Origin service.
Fuck that noise.
Let me state that I'm not against EA opening their own store with their own desktop app. EA and Stardock and whoever else feels like dipping their toes into the digital pool can go have fun. However, the exclusivity bothers the fuck out of me, and there are many arguments for why I refuse to download BF3 through Origin:
1) I happen to like Steam, and my entire gaming library is now seamlessly integrated into Steam, so I'm not using another service. Steam is convenient. It offers viable voice chat. It's unobtrustive and just works, unlike (say) the EA Download Manager, which wormed its way into my startup config files and required constant manual removal. I have no faith that Origin will Just Work, and zero faith that it'll only run when I want it to.
2) EA has demonstrated a willingness to shut down its online servers the moment that game stops selling retail. I have no faith that Origin will permit lifetime redownloads, or that they'll decrypt your library if the service shuts down. This is not a company which prioritizes customer service.
3) EA is a festering pile of shit. They're already carving up BF3 into retailer-exclusive bonuses. Unlike when they did this for Dragon Age, this will materially affect online multiplayer competitive balance. Snipers with a flash suppressor will have a measured advantage in a large battlefield. And now they're withholding major title releases from the biggest distributors in the business? As much as I'm salivating for BF3 and ME3, I'd refuse to buy just out of spite. Or, perhaps better, I'll wait a few months and buy used, so they don't see a single fucking dime of my money.
I'm hoping that the internet backlash against these practices will put EA games back on Steam, but I suspect (and I suspect EA suspects) that nerd internet rage won't prevent them from shelling out $60 on launch day, boxed, digital, or otherwise. Even hardened Steam zealots will find a way to justify buying Mass Effect 3.
I guess I can always buy a physical copy...
Friday, June 10, 2011
Cultural Momentum
I listened to Adele's chart-storming single "Rolling in the Deep" this afternoon while driving to acquire lunch. Given the track's surging popularity and my general affinity for that style of cross-genre music that's not surprising. What's surprising is that this was on 101.9 WRXP, an otherwise 100% red-blooded rock station. They also played Rolling in the Deep on my morning commute, and there's a decent chance I'll catch it at 5pm also. This is the kind of station that wouldn't dream of playing The National and their brand of melodic folk rock, or (say) The Decemberists, or even KT Tunstall, but they're all-in on Adele right now.
WRXP has entered this territory before, temporarily expanding their otherwise narrowly focused rock library for specific track exemptions that surpass a certain mainstream popularity threshold, provided the existence some tenuous link to the larger caucasian musical culture despite a much heavier genre influence by rap, R&B, or soul. They experimented for a whle with Eminem (white), Gnarls Barkley (half-white), and there was a 3-month period where Bob Marley (pot culture) was in heavy rotation. No NERD though, no Roots, no Lil Wayne doing his rock thang.
Adele is an interesting test case for mainstream popularity because 1) she doesn't fit the typical female starlet mold and 2) she had already won a Grammy for her debut album in 2008 but didn't seem to catch any kind of major zeitgeist presence until Rolling in the Deep in 2011, so she wasn't carrying the hipster groundswell that blessed Feist an Apple commercial. So she's not the Hot New Thing. Why such sudden interest, then?
If forced to guess, I think it's based purely on the raw power of her singing voice in Rolling in the Deep. It feels unprocessed and unedited, a stark departure from the autotuned nightmare on any pop or Top40 station. She's a singer with a voice so astounding that even rock addicts who leave WRXP fixed on the car radio have to take notice.
In terms of collective cultural comprehension, that's a big fucking deal, no? How many times has somebody done one particular thing so well that knowledge and appreciation of the performance broke through the popular boundaries of the event's normal audience?
WRXP has entered this territory before, temporarily expanding their otherwise narrowly focused rock library for specific track exemptions that surpass a certain mainstream popularity threshold, provided the existence some tenuous link to the larger caucasian musical culture despite a much heavier genre influence by rap, R&B, or soul. They experimented for a whle with Eminem (white), Gnarls Barkley (half-white), and there was a 3-month period where Bob Marley (pot culture) was in heavy rotation. No NERD though, no Roots, no Lil Wayne doing his rock thang.
Adele is an interesting test case for mainstream popularity because 1) she doesn't fit the typical female starlet mold and 2) she had already won a Grammy for her debut album in 2008 but didn't seem to catch any kind of major zeitgeist presence until Rolling in the Deep in 2011, so she wasn't carrying the hipster groundswell that blessed Feist an Apple commercial. So she's not the Hot New Thing. Why such sudden interest, then?
If forced to guess, I think it's based purely on the raw power of her singing voice in Rolling in the Deep. It feels unprocessed and unedited, a stark departure from the autotuned nightmare on any pop or Top40 station. She's a singer with a voice so astounding that even rock addicts who leave WRXP fixed on the car radio have to take notice.
In terms of collective cultural comprehension, that's a big fucking deal, no? How many times has somebody done one particular thing so well that knowledge and appreciation of the performance broke through the popular boundaries of the event's normal audience?
Friday, June 3, 2011
Quiz Time
1) The following consecutive slash lines demonstrate which statistical or mathematical concept?
.274/.340/.436
.274/.348/.454
.285/.346/.451
.354/.415/.677
A: Benford's Law
B: Unusual number
C: Collatz conjecture
D: Statistical outlier
2) Which player demonstrated significant offensive growth after arriving at Las Vegas and playing in the PCL?
A: Eric Hosmer
B: Domonic Brown
C: Dustin Ackley
D: Brett Lawrie
3) Which of the following players are, in all seriousness, out-performing Brett Lawrie in the PCL in terms of OPS?
A: Ian Stewart
B: Chris Davis
C: Wily Mo Pena
D: All of the above
4) Precisely how high are Chris's hopes about winning the call-up lottery and getting the equivalent of Evan Longoria?
A: High
B: Very High
C: Unrealistically High
D: _______________________
So today's supposedly imminent promotion of Brett Lawrie to the Blue Jays roster has me irrationally exuberant, thanks largely to my desire to replace Aramis Ramirez in my lineup. Aramis is currently slugging somewhere in the vicinity of his OBP and has produced enough runs and RBI in an anemic Cubs offense to equal the fantasy output of the #13-15 catchers baseball. Crossing my fingers that he experiences another second-half renaissance is less fun than speculating on the latest minor league lottery ticket.
I picked up Lawrie the second I saw Owen pick up Dustin Ackley. Normally I'd attempt to wait until the very last second to make this sort of add (see: Hosmer, and Posey/Santana last year) but I didn't want to risk it here with evidence that at least one other owner was both aware of minor league activity and willing to gamble early on a player. I think the Yahoo fantasy article on Lawrie had just come up that day or the one prior, also, so the cover was blown.
As you may have gleaned from the slash lines above, Lawrie's having something of a career year in AAA. After startlingly similar serviceable stretches in multiple leagues from 2009-2010, he's become a sudden 4-tool stud in the PCL, with 15 homeruns and 11 steals in 12 attempts. It's easy to dismiss this as the inflated stats of a PCL batter in dry desert air. It's far more fun and self-serving to dig around for scouting reports that justify your inner desires.
.274/.340/.436
.274/.348/.454
.285/.346/.451
.354/.415/.677
A: Benford's Law
B: Unusual number
C: Collatz conjecture
D: Statistical outlier
2) Which player demonstrated significant offensive growth after arriving at Las Vegas and playing in the PCL?
A: Eric Hosmer
B: Domonic Brown
C: Dustin Ackley
D: Brett Lawrie
3) Which of the following players are, in all seriousness, out-performing Brett Lawrie in the PCL in terms of OPS?
A: Ian Stewart
B: Chris Davis
C: Wily Mo Pena
D: All of the above
4) Precisely how high are Chris's hopes about winning the call-up lottery and getting the equivalent of Evan Longoria?
A: High
B: Very High
C: Unrealistically High
D: _______________________
So today's supposedly imminent promotion of Brett Lawrie to the Blue Jays roster has me irrationally exuberant, thanks largely to my desire to replace Aramis Ramirez in my lineup. Aramis is currently slugging somewhere in the vicinity of his OBP and has produced enough runs and RBI in an anemic Cubs offense to equal the fantasy output of the #13-15 catchers baseball. Crossing my fingers that he experiences another second-half renaissance is less fun than speculating on the latest minor league lottery ticket.
I picked up Lawrie the second I saw Owen pick up Dustin Ackley. Normally I'd attempt to wait until the very last second to make this sort of add (see: Hosmer, and Posey/Santana last year) but I didn't want to risk it here with evidence that at least one other owner was both aware of minor league activity and willing to gamble early on a player. I think the Yahoo fantasy article on Lawrie had just come up that day or the one prior, also, so the cover was blown.
As you may have gleaned from the slash lines above, Lawrie's having something of a career year in AAA. After startlingly similar serviceable stretches in multiple leagues from 2009-2010, he's become a sudden 4-tool stud in the PCL, with 15 homeruns and 11 steals in 12 attempts. It's easy to dismiss this as the inflated stats of a PCL batter in dry desert air. It's far more fun and self-serving to dig around for scouting reports that justify your inner desires.
Based on his track record, and what I saw Sunday afternoon, I am convinced that Brett Lawrie has everything needed to be a superstar.They say the same thing on American Idol, I'm told.
Lawrie has always shown me good bat speed when I've seen him, but he's taken that up a notch this year. He's closed his stance slightly compared to previous observations, and his bat looks even quicker now. He is working counts MUCH more effectively than when I've see him in the past.Could it be that he's taken The Leap? I hope so. One of the author's responses in the comment thread was to label Lawrie as (potentially) the next Ryan Braun. This is absurd praise for someone who's never even seen a major league pitch, but I have a chip on my shoulder after missing out on Hosmer by an hour because of a dinner date, and because Carl Crawford, and dropping Bedard, and my litany of blown saves and pitching meltdowns, and I'd really just like to win one of these free agency decisions this year, so I'll take whatever outlandish projections I can get.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Cavalier
Yes, it's been a slow month at work. Here's another superficial look at another combat character. I'm finding that each of these builds forces me to look at a different set of feat chains, and today it's charging stuff. Now that I'm actually trying to piece together attack strategies, mounted combat is actually rather confusing. For example, regarding a maneuver like overrun, do both rider and mount need the related feats to avoid attacks of opportunity? If the mount has it, is the target allowed to attack the PC? Even though it's technically the mount doing the overrun? Can the mount take Improved Overrun and the PC take Greater Overrun and have the mount's overrun action technically also qualify as the PC's? I'm sure this is answered somewhere on the web, but my search capability is currently limited.
Is it the horse doing the overrun, or is it the rider's action spurring the horse onward as his mobile platform? Can the PC use his CMB in that case?
If you charge with your horse with a lance, you have reach, so you *have* to attack from 10' away. But your horse only has reach 5'. Can a horse not attack as part of your combined charge action? Or do you get the lance in first and the horse continues movement to melee range if desired?
Greater Overrun causes the target to provoke AoO upon going prone. Does that include the rider who just knocked him down? And the mount? If so, does the lance reach prevent the rider from making an attack the moment the AoO is declared, while target, mount, and horse all occupy the same square?
For now, I'm operating under the following assumptions, in order of ascending uncertainty:
1) Rider and mount get independent AoO eligibility.
2) Overrun can be done in addition to charge attacks ("as part of a charge")
3) Overrun while charging allows horse/rider to continue moving after the charge attack when Ride-By Attack is utilized.
4) If Trample is eventually taken, that extra mount attack would be in addition to the charge attacks and the AoOs.
5) Greater Overrun prone provokes AoO from both rider and mount, in addition to the charge attacks
6) The mount is the one using his CMB for combat maneuvers, but with feat bonuses from the rider.
7) The rider (PC) utilizes the appropriate maneuver feats, and they apply to both rider and mount while together. The mount doesn't require the feats unless the PC has dismounted and the horse still wants to trample things.
8) Rider and mount attack actions don't need to resolve at the same time, in order to accomodate reach complications. The rider can attack from 10' away while the mount is continuing to move into 5' range, and then the mount can attack. The rider can also resolve any overrun AoO while moving away from the occupied square, to accomodate reach. Alternatively, the rider could be considered to be attacking from the back square, while the mount attacks from the front square.
If anybody with greater knowledge or understanding of mounted combat rules wants to clarify or correct anything I've typed, please feel free.
Class: Cavalier 6
Order: of the Lion
Race: Human
Str: 20 (17) [13]
Dex: 13 [3]
Con: 13 [3]
Int: 13 [3]
Wis: 8 [-2]
Cha: 14 [5]
Gear: +1 lance, +1 full plate, +1 heavy shield
Horse gear: +1 breastplate barding (medium)
H1: Power Attack
L1: Improved Overrun
C1: Paired Opportunists (or maybe Coordinated Maneuvers)
L3: Mounted Combat
L5: Ride-By Attack
C6: Spirited Charge
E7: Greater Overrun
Concept: Cavalier focuses on setting up mounted charge situations, stacks up on associated overrun feats. When making a charge, he gets his main charge attack (at a x3 multiplier), his horse gets a primary bite attack, then overrun resolves. If successful, target may be knocked prone, which triggers AoOs from both PC and horse at normal multipliers (at +4 bonus because target is prone, but not the +4 from charging because the charge attack has already been resolved. This can improve to +8 if the PC uses his Tactician ability to share his teamwork feat with the horse.).
Horse companion:
Str: 20
Dex: 15
Con: 17
Int: 3
Wis: 12
Cha: 6
Special qualities/abilities: Scent, low light vision, combat trained, light armor proficiency, medium armor proficiency (feat), link, evasion, devotion
H1: Medium Armor Proficiency
H2: Combat Reflexes
H5: Bodyguard
Concept: Not having to take the overrun feats allows him to stack up on offensive or defensive options instead. Here, I've used his one free bonus stat point to give him a 3 int, which lets him choose freely from all feats he qualifies for. Bodyguard lets the mount use an AoO for a defensive aid-another whenever the rider is targeted by an attack, which gives the rider up to two attacks at an almost automatic +2 AC. If he continues to get feats as PCs do in the E6 environment, he can continue into dodge, mobility, and improved natural armor for self-defense.
Cavalier hit:
5 str
6 BAB
1 weapon enhancement
1 higher ground (against medium and smaller creatures)
1 morale (Banner ability)
-2 power attack
= +12
Optional hit:
+4 charge
+4 AoO
+1 competence (Lion's Call)
Cavalier damage:
7 str
6 power attack
1 weapon enhancement
= +14
Optional damage:
+6 challenge
Cavalier AC:
10 base
9 armor
1 armor enhancement
1 dex
2 shield
1 shield enhancement
2 bodyguard bonus
(2 dodge vs challenge target, -2 vs non-challenged targets)
= 26 (28/24)
Horse hit:
5 str + 4 BAB + 1 morale (banner) = +10
+12 on charge
Additional +1 competence during Lion's Call
Horse damage: 5 str
Horse AC:
10 base
6 armor
2 dex
8 natural armor
= 26 (24 on charge)
Full attack line: +12/+7 [1d8+14] lance
+10 [1d4+5] bite
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
Charge: +16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + challenge: +16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + successful overrun knockdown:
+16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+14] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Charge + overrun + challenge:
+16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+20] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Is it the horse doing the overrun, or is it the rider's action spurring the horse onward as his mobile platform? Can the PC use his CMB in that case?
If you charge with your horse with a lance, you have reach, so you *have* to attack from 10' away. But your horse only has reach 5'. Can a horse not attack as part of your combined charge action? Or do you get the lance in first and the horse continues movement to melee range if desired?
Greater Overrun causes the target to provoke AoO upon going prone. Does that include the rider who just knocked him down? And the mount? If so, does the lance reach prevent the rider from making an attack the moment the AoO is declared, while target, mount, and horse all occupy the same square?
For now, I'm operating under the following assumptions, in order of ascending uncertainty:
1) Rider and mount get independent AoO eligibility.
2) Overrun can be done in addition to charge attacks ("as part of a charge")
3) Overrun while charging allows horse/rider to continue moving after the charge attack when Ride-By Attack is utilized.
4) If Trample is eventually taken, that extra mount attack would be in addition to the charge attacks and the AoOs.
5) Greater Overrun prone provokes AoO from both rider and mount, in addition to the charge attacks
6) The mount is the one using his CMB for combat maneuvers, but with feat bonuses from the rider.
7) The rider (PC) utilizes the appropriate maneuver feats, and they apply to both rider and mount while together. The mount doesn't require the feats unless the PC has dismounted and the horse still wants to trample things.
8) Rider and mount attack actions don't need to resolve at the same time, in order to accomodate reach complications. The rider can attack from 10' away while the mount is continuing to move into 5' range, and then the mount can attack. The rider can also resolve any overrun AoO while moving away from the occupied square, to accomodate reach. Alternatively, the rider could be considered to be attacking from the back square, while the mount attacks from the front square.
If anybody with greater knowledge or understanding of mounted combat rules wants to clarify or correct anything I've typed, please feel free.
Class: Cavalier 6
Order: of the Lion
Race: Human
Str: 20 (17) [13]
Dex: 13 [3]
Con: 13 [3]
Int: 13 [3]
Wis: 8 [-2]
Cha: 14 [5]
Gear: +1 lance, +1 full plate, +1 heavy shield
Horse gear: +1 breastplate barding (medium)
H1: Power Attack
L1: Improved Overrun
C1: Paired Opportunists (or maybe Coordinated Maneuvers)
L3: Mounted Combat
L5: Ride-By Attack
C6: Spirited Charge
E7: Greater Overrun
Concept: Cavalier focuses on setting up mounted charge situations, stacks up on associated overrun feats. When making a charge, he gets his main charge attack (at a x3 multiplier), his horse gets a primary bite attack, then overrun resolves. If successful, target may be knocked prone, which triggers AoOs from both PC and horse at normal multipliers (at +4 bonus because target is prone, but not the +4 from charging because the charge attack has already been resolved. This can improve to +8 if the PC uses his Tactician ability to share his teamwork feat with the horse.).
Horse companion:
Str: 20
Dex: 15
Con: 17
Int: 3
Wis: 12
Cha: 6
Special qualities/abilities: Scent, low light vision, combat trained, light armor proficiency, medium armor proficiency (feat), link, evasion, devotion
H1: Medium Armor Proficiency
H2: Combat Reflexes
H5: Bodyguard
Concept: Not having to take the overrun feats allows him to stack up on offensive or defensive options instead. Here, I've used his one free bonus stat point to give him a 3 int, which lets him choose freely from all feats he qualifies for. Bodyguard lets the mount use an AoO for a defensive aid-another whenever the rider is targeted by an attack, which gives the rider up to two attacks at an almost automatic +2 AC. If he continues to get feats as PCs do in the E6 environment, he can continue into dodge, mobility, and improved natural armor for self-defense.
Cavalier hit:
5 str
6 BAB
1 weapon enhancement
1 higher ground (against medium and smaller creatures)
1 morale (Banner ability)
-2 power attack
= +12
Optional hit:
+4 charge
+4 AoO
+1 competence (Lion's Call)
Cavalier damage:
7 str
6 power attack
1 weapon enhancement
= +14
Optional damage:
+6 challenge
Cavalier AC:
10 base
9 armor
1 armor enhancement
1 dex
2 shield
1 shield enhancement
2 bodyguard bonus
(2 dodge vs challenge target, -2 vs non-challenged targets)
= 26 (28/24)
Horse hit:
5 str + 4 BAB + 1 morale (banner) = +10
+12 on charge
Additional +1 competence during Lion's Call
Horse damage: 5 str
Horse AC:
10 base
6 armor
2 dex
8 natural armor
= 26 (24 on charge)
Full attack line: +12/+7 [1d8+14] lance
+10 [1d4+5] bite
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
Charge: +16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + challenge: +16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + successful overrun knockdown:
+16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+14] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Charge + overrun + challenge:
+16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+20] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)