Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Backdoor Slider

Established Members
  • Content Count

    10,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Posts posted by Backdoor Slider

  1. 11 minutes ago, TheNephilim said:

    Sorry if this is a repost.  I can’t find another thread but I imagine it has to have happened to others who use ESPN.   In my 14 team roto ESPN league ( I’m commish) , the scoring for pitching in the final standings reverted to all ties for ERA and WHIP thereby giving everyone 7.5 pts. This is obviously an error.    This changed the final standings and is flat incorrect.    I assumed it would fix and was simply a glitch.  It hasn’t been fixed and I don’t see any clear contact info for ESPN but a bunch of nonsense faqs.      Anyone else have this happen?  I’m holding leaguesafe until glitch fixes.   

    I’m guessing it’s because no one hit the innings limit. Might have to reset and then see if it refreshes the standings.

    • Like 1
  2. He’s been a 115 wRC+ hitter (15% above average) as a 20 and 21 year-old. He seems to be holding his own very well, and I’m really not sure what the expectations are. Yes, he is not Juan Soto or Mike Trout. But those are the exceptions to the rule. No one is.

    Based on his MiLB batting profile, I still expect some .310+/40+ HR in his future. Will that happen at 22? Not sure. But I’m fairly confident he will be a 140+ wRC+ hitter before long. 

    • Like 1
  3. Also 3rd win in 5 season for me in my keeper. While the championship counts, there is definitely an * in my point total. I finished with 87 total points, with second and 3rd finishing at 59.5 and 58, respectively. That is the highest point total to end a season ever but just like if someone had hit .400 in a 60 game “season,” it can’t be viewed as the same.

    So not the grind we’re used to, but a lot of fun maneuvering the bizarre road. Looking forward to what is hopefully back to “normal” next year. 

    • Like 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, NoHablaIngles said:

     

    I think people are forgetting Yelich is coming off Knee surgery. I think he will come back strong next year. Bellinger, I too am less confident but he's still a worthy first round talent in my opinion

    Bellinger’s average was a fluke last season, but his 162 game average through this, his age 24 season, is .273/39 HR/14 SB (and 200+ RBI/runs). And as that lineup is currently constructed, he’s an easy top 10 pick. As a bonus, getting 10+ SBs out of your 1B is super valuable.

    • Like 1
  5. 8 minutes ago, Fbaseballgod said:

     

    I would be afraid to take them in the early first round.  Late first round or early second round I would be willing to take the risk, probably, especially with Yelich.  

    Yes I think both go 7-12. Both great talents. While Yelich may feel a little safer, I think the Dodgers lineup makes up for it. 

  6. 1 hour ago, B&F said:

    Yellich and Bellinger 2nd round.  Machado and Harper slide in at bottom.

    Otherwise that is what I have.

     

     

    This is the type of overreaction to a 60 game sample size I was hoping to see. Hoping my leaguemates do the same. Can’t wait to capitalize! 

    • Like 3
  7. 29 minutes ago, FootballFan101 said:

     

    I didn't say solely.  Obviously there's lot of other decisions and factors as well.  However, the point is that if Mookie Betts had had his normal average season over the past 5 years last year, I would have won my league.  That's not speculation, that's a fact.

    I don't see how you can say Betts was "great" last year.  Ranking 14th in ESPN (15th in Yahoo) isn't what owners hope for from someone who had a #2 ADP last year and finished as the top overall player in both 2016 and 2018.  And most of his production came in one category: runs scored.  He was very disappointing in the other 4 categories.  Take a look at his 2019 page.  I was far from the only manager who was fed up with Mookie last year. 

    Oh, I’m well aware there were many other irrational owners last year as well. Not just you.

    Truth is, I bet there’s many who took Mookie this year at 4 and are disappointed and losing their league because he’s not even top 5. What a bum.

  8. 13 minutes ago, FootballFan101 said:

     

    Well, I said I'd come back at the end and admit I wrong if Bettis was a top 20 player this year, so I'll eat crow now and admit I was wrong.

    I couldn't have been more disappointed owning Betts last year.  I thought I was getting a 5 cat stud in his prime in a great lineup in a greater hitter's park, and he ended up being very mediocre in 4 of the 5 categories.  Considering I lost my roto money league by 1.5 points, Betts' down year cost me my league.  Seeing Betts bounce back and do great this year only adds to my disappointment with Betts last year.

    I appreciate you coming back, but you’re still way off base. Mookie was 14th on the ESPN player rater last season, and is currently 6th. This isn’t a perfect measure, but point: He was great both seasons. And certainly you realize that small gap wasn’t what cost you the league last year, at least alone. There were probably plenty of players/decisions made that ultimately made the difference. Saying you lost solely because of Mookie’s “down year” is still laughable. 

    • Like 1
  9. 37 minutes ago, KingJoffrey said:

    I still want to hear the rationale for people not drafting Yelich, Bellinger, Lindor and Arenado.

    What are you getting at here? Is this your evidence for “luck”?

    People didnt predict the drop offs, particularly in a short season. But good, successful owners draft well, identify free agents well, and make shrewd, “buy low” trades that can help alleviate some of the pain of a bust first round pick.

    One single bust or injury can be bad luck. That doesn’t mean all of the results are based on luck.

    • Like 2
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 10 minutes ago, posty said:

     

    Bull...

    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.

  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. .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
  18. 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.

    THAT’S THE POINT.

    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
  19. 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!

×
×
  • Create New...