Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Backdoor Slider

Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Backdoor Slider

  1. 11 minutes ago, cizastro said:


    Makes sense.  I know I've seen pitchers get saves pitching less than an inning before but they probably inherited runners.  I've never really paid close attention to that before.

    Yeah if he had come in with guys on base he could’ve gotten the save, even by only getting one out. That is the qualifiers.

    • Like 1
  2. 13 hours ago, cizastro said:

    I thought Anderson should've gotten a save too.  He came in after the RP before him brought it to within a 3-run game.  Seems like it should qualify for a save unless there's some obscure rule I'm missing.


    5 minutes ago, Ecofolux said:

    Does anyone have an answer as to why Nick Anderson did not receive a Save for yesterdays game?

    “A relief pitcher recording a save must preserve his team's lead while doing one of the following: Enter the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitch at least one inning. Enter the game with the tying run in the on-deck circle, at the plate or on the bases. Pitch at least three innings.”

    He did none of these. Therefore, no save.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, posty said:


    When I played a lot in the past, I put a lot of effort into it...  Looking at last 7-days, 14-days, where hitting in the lineup, etc...  I used that to make an educated guess to select players and who to start/sit...  I guess most call this skill, I don't because it is available for all to use...  I didn't gather the data, I didn't take all of the numbers to get all of the new baseball statistics abbreviations are available, that was done by someone else, so no skill on my part...

    Then when the players performed, I had absolutely no skill in that, unless I was pitching and throwing grapefruits up there...  I depended on the skill of all the players involved...  That is all luck, no skill there...

    That is why I think it is 100% skill because I don't acquire any of the numbers used to get the data I look at...  I guess you can maybe go with when you watch the player, but then it goes back to that being the skill of all the players involved, not the fantasy owner personally...

    And many don’t do that, and constantly fall behind in my league because they’re not researching pickups each week, they’re not looking at starting hitters with horrible splits v. LHP, etc.

    And that’s not luck. Me and you outworking and out-researching them isn’t luck. 

    • Like 1
  4. 10 minutes ago, posty said:



    Pre-internet, yes...  Today, no...  Everyone has the same access to the data...

    Ok I guess I kind of see where you’re coming. I still think there’s some skill involved in understanding what you’re looking at, but I suppose you can do enough if you want to figure it out, if you want.

    So I think the sticking point here is that when you say “100% luck,” that insinuates it doesn’t matter how much effort you put in. And we should all agree that’s not luck.

    But maybe that effort isn’t a skill. So I get that point. Still don’t see it as 100% luck though. But willing to change it to time/effort being rewarded.

    Outworking others isn’t luck.

  5. 2 minutes ago, posty said:


    I used to come here for the lineups and post them here...  When I played in the past, I rarely read about the players, maybe here and there...

    But as I have said, doing research is not a skill...

    Skill- the ability to do something well; expertise.


    Not everyone has the same ability to research, analyze, etc. Research is 100%, without a doubt, skill.

    • Like 1
  6. 15 minutes ago, posty said:


    So you have nothing to disprove me...

    Look, we can argue all you want (and others) it isn't going to change anyone's mind...

    You think that there is skill, I say it is all luck...  Each of us thinks the other is wrong...  That is the great thing about opinions...

    But either way, and this is fact, once I accepted that fantasy games were 100% luck, I enjoyed them much more than I did when I thought that there was some skill involved...

    So go ahead and carry on to help you get through the day and fantasy seasons and I will do the same...

    Of course there’s no way to disprove anything here. Which is what makes the discussion interesting. You put forth your opinion, and I share mine. That’s how this works. I don’t know why you’d think you could throw out 100% luck (I’m not sure one person would agree with that), and not expect someone to challenge that. 
    I’m glad you enjoy fantasy sports more. What I’ve found in my experience, in fantasy and in life, is that those who don’t succeed always blame it on outside forces, such as luck. And those who do well, understand the work involved. 

    • Like 2
  7. 1 hour ago, posty said:

    It is all luck...  Doing research is not a skill...

    Understanding what you’re looking for in potential breakout candidates certainly isn’t luck lol.

    I agree that it’s setting/dependent, but that’s always the case. H2H comes down to luck, as in who you play each week is factored into your success, and then obviously you can go undefeated and get bounced with one bad week in the playoffs.

    In roto, there is certainly skill involved. Not just for players, but settings. In my league, so some guys still go off internet lists. We use K/BB instead of Ks. Changes the value of guys like Maeda and Hendricks tremendously. 
     I thought this season might be more luck-based than previous years, but I can tell you in my league the same 5 teams who always finish near the top, did. And the same bottom dwellers finished near the bottom.

    Winning your league- some more luck involved. But consistently finishing top 3-4- skill. And this season was no different. 

    • Like 1
  8. .353/.476/1.160

    193 wRC+

    18.5 BB%/14.3 K% 

    11 HR in 39 games.

    If you thought last season was a breakout, Soto has taken his game to another level. SSS, but at 21 years old this is absolutely insane.

    I always thought he may be limited for fantasy, but a tweet I saw yesterday mentioned his desire to steal 20 bases.

    This dude’s floor is so high, I’m thinking he’s a top 4-5 pick next season. 

    • Like 2
  9. 20 minutes ago, sleepysock said:

    People aren't answering this question bc it's so ridiculous. Not trying to be mean -- that's just the truth. If you don't get why there is a postseason in sports, then people aren't going to engage with you.

    No of course I do. It generates revenue for owners and is exciting for fans. It doesn’t reward the best team all season.


    Lol. You guys are pretending what we currently have is somehow superior. It’s not. It’s what you’ve been sold. And you’re not replying because you can’t truly justify your point about how 162 is so important and still supporting current playoffs.

    But you knew that.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  10. 29 minutes ago, sleepysock said:

    Get back to me when we start seeing 75 win teams make deep postseason runs on a regular basis. That'll just be lovely.

    The whole damn point of the 162 game season is to reward the teams that have proved good enough to play a second, mini-season to crown a champion. If you're going to have half the league make the playoffs, then just cut the season to 80 games. If you're gonna ruin baseball, go all the way with it!

    Why do a “mini-season” to crown a champ if the 162 means so much and proves who the best team is? Way more than a 7 game series. Why won’t anyone answer my question? Why not just do roto style then and name the champ at the end of 162? That way the best team always wins!

  11. 19 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

    Oh teacher teacher I know why we have playoffs.  We have playoffs so the very BEST teams can compete to win the World Series.  The cream of the crop.  The ones that earned it over a long, rough season.  They won the right to play head-to-head for it.  Not so middling, participation trophy teams can try and get lucky at the end.

    Does a Cinderella team sometimes win in this format?  Sure but only once in a blue moon.  Which is what a Cinderella win is all about.  That it is so rare that it is memorable.  Not that every year it happens which just makes it a silly, dumb down win and not a true Cinderella win.

    Why not the best team in each league? Why do you think some middling, participation trophy winner like the 2nd place team in some division deserves a playoff spot?

    See, here’s the thing. You either think the 162 matters and the champ is crowned at the end. Or you believe in playoffs. What’s happening is everyone here has decided that YOU know the perfect amount of playoff teams that should make the playoffs (which, as you know, is laughable).

    What is the perfect amount? I don’t know. But I do know the difference between a .618 team and a .565 team isn’t all that great, and I’m ok with them playing it out in a series at the end of the year to see who gets to move on. For fun. For excitement. For fans.

    I also know that in ANY playoff, the best team doesn’t always win. That’s true of all sports. 

  12. 57 minutes ago, sleepysock said:

    The postseason is supposed to be where the best of the best duke it out. When 70-something win teams start making it in, it'll be a farce. You can't compare it to other sports; that's an apples to oranges argument and if you're making it, you've already moved the goalposts so far that you've effectively given up your side of the argument to the slaughter. It is so much easier to win a baseball game than any other type of team athletic event. This is why the 162-game season is of any value at all. It takes time to separate the wheat from the chaff. The worst NBA team of all-time won an equivalent of 17 MLB games. The best NBA team of all-time won an equivalent of 144 MLB games. Get the picture? To not only have the chaff make the postseason, but give them close to a coin-flip chance if they move to a best of 3 in the first round, is an idea so asinine that it defies explanation.

    Pretty sure everyone understands this. If the 162 means something, and we understand that in baseball anything can happen in 3 or 5 or even 7 games, than there should be no playoffs. End of the season, best team wins. Isn’t that the most fair, best way to decide a championship in baseball?

    The answer is yes. So as soon as you start to discuss WHY we even have playoffs at all, maybe you’ll start to grasp the point. 

  13. 1 minute ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

    It kills regular season baseball and does not reward excellent or at least the very least legit over .500 teams for doing the work.  Also, it is plain silly. 

    I don't want Baltimore winning the World Series this year.  There is Cinderella in 10 teams.  Fine.  16 teams?  Please.  If one of the weaker teams wins it is like one of Cinderella's two ugly step-sisters wins and turns the whole damn season into a giant pumpkin in the process.  No one wants that.

    So let’s reward true excellence and get rid of playoffs altogether. Because anything can happen in a short series, and it’s not indicative of who had the best season. So roto-style MLB. I’m down!

  14. 3 minutes ago, Hanghow said:

    Sell me on it being good. The most viewed World Series were all during the era of 4-team playoffs. They're down since the 90's Yankees run and see bigger bumps when the big market teams are in it; not when two Davids are fighting it out.

    TV ratings are meaningless. They peak in the 70s and go pretty much straight down? That has everything to do with more options on TV, declining interest in baseball, etc. If we went to 4 teams again, I promise you ratings don’t magically jump back up.

    Keeping more fan bases interested in a playoff chase into September can only be seen as a positive as far as I’m concerned.

  15. 2 minutes ago, Hanghow said:

    A top-4 team has won 63% of the NCAA tournaments. The six division winners in baseball have only accounted for 70% of World Series trophies since the implementation of the Wild Card and they're guaranteed to at least have two spots in the final four. Baseball is much much more random than basketball, as I said before and you seem to have conveniently overlooked.

    Maybe we scrap playoffs then and do roto style! We all agree 162 is a grind and we love it. Best team after 162 is the champ! Or how about top team in AL & NL just plays for the championship? Why reward those other losers who couldn’t even be the best team after 162?

    If not, what makes you think you know the correct number of playoff teams there should be? Why not have more teams, and fans, engaged in September playoff runs? And why not have stories of David knocking off Goliath? Sell me on how this is bad for baseball.

    • Like 1
  16. 3 minutes ago, ty5592 said:

    Horrible analogy. Currently 68 out of 350 teams make the ncaa tournament. Expanding the mlb playoffs would be like expanding the tournament to 175.  No one would want to watch it. 

    I mean, you’re wrong. Everyone would still watch. People love Cinderella stories and bad teams knocking off good teams (as long as it’s not your team). It would be like one more round lol.

    When the 83-78 Cardinals won the World Series, was everyone outraged and screaming about participation trophies? I don’t remember it. It was a fun story for many.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...