Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Backdoor Slider

Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Backdoor Slider

  1. 3 hours ago, FootballFan101 said:


    It's true Fenway's not a great place for HR, but it is a phenomenal place for batting average and runs because of the Green Monster. 

    Going into this year for his career, Betts had 

    .319 BA, 65 HR, 318 R, 253 RBI in 394 career games at Fenway

    .285 BA, 74 HR, 293 R, 217 RBI in 398 career road games

    So, yes, I could see HRs going up slightly for him at Dodger Stadium, but I think runs, RBIs, and especially batting average will get worse without Fenway.  Also I don't see the 25-30 stolen bases he used to get prior to last year coming back either.  Lastly, aside from obviously Coors Field (where the Dodgers only play 4 games), there's a ton of pitcher's park in the NL West and AL West overall where he'll be playing all his games this year.

    Personally, I don't expect Betts to be a top 20 fantasy player this year, and it wouldn't shock me if he's not top 40 either..  If Betts does end up being a top 20 player, I'll definitely come back here and admit I was wrong at the end of the year, but that's the way I feel after owning Bettis last year.

    Every player rater I see from 2019 says he was a top 15 player last season. If you were disappointed with .295/29/16 and 135 runs, your expectations were the problem, not the player. But we can agree to disagree. 

    • Like 1
  2. 10 minutes ago, FootballFan101 said:

    I'm glad I don't own any shares of Mookie Bettis this year.  [...] I could not possibly have been more disappointed in Betts last year.  If Betts had just performed at his 3 year averages, I would have won the league.

    Now that Betts is moving to a much worse hitters park and has the nice big fat contact, along with the likelihood that the stolen bases will never come back, I'm totally out on Betts this year, given that his ADP barely dropped at all from last year.  He'll still likely be a big contributor in runs scored, but overall I don't think he'll be close to first round production.  If he bounces back to his 2016-2018 level, he'll be someone else's success story, not mine. 

    I don’t think you read the post directly above yours. All parks aren’t equal for all hitters.

  3. On 7/4/2020 at 6:38 PM, The Big Bat Theory said:

    Meanwhile, back to Freddie:

    I hope it doesn't get any worse for him.  But it doesn't look like he will be back to baseball any time soon.


    On 7/5/2020 at 1:44 PM, The Big Bat Theory said:

     So no way can I see him baseball ready by the 24th.  He will be fortunate if he is even cleared to come back and start a belated spring training by then.

    Meanwhile from this AM:



    On 7/15/2020 at 10:38 PM, The Big Bat Theory said:

    Will he play this season?  He could at some point barring set backs.  Will he be ready for opening day just 10 days from now?  My opinion.  No how no way.  Zero percent chance. 


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 3
  4. There seems to be some thought this could be a false positive. He can come back after two straight negatives in 24 hours. 
    Is it possible he misses a couple weeks? Sure. Also possible he’s back this weekend (he’s asymptomatic so no physical affects once he can return).

    “When or if he’ll be back this season...” 😂😂😂

    I see things haven’t changed. Welcome to the boards, @Nix 

    • Like 2
  5. 2 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

    More teams are NOT in the playoffs.  That was a proposal that looked like it might get accepted but from what I read the final agreement just calls for the usual 10 teams making the playoffs again this season.  After FanDuel posted the below they just went on to cite the exact same playoff rules from last year to the letter including just the 10 teams with NL and AL Wild Cards having the one game and out thing as usual then first round of 5 games before the remaining rounds of 7 games.   Same old same old in other words.

    He didn’t say more teams are in the playoffs. He said more teams in the playoff race. Which is true. There’s 60 games left and everyone is tied for first. Unlike the usual marathon, where great teams have time to distance themselves, anything can happen. Going to be a sprint to those playoff spots. 

    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, JE7HorseGod said:

    I think Scherzer articulated the case better than Snell.

    There are a lot of people who just say, "the players are greedy, they want more money" I think it's not the worst thing in the world to hear why that's a misrepresentation of the case from a star player if it's expressed well, as I think it is in this case.

    No doubt. It’s just not the forum. It drums up a lot of negatively as well. Social media is not the place for any type of nuanced discussion. 

    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, JE7HorseGod said:

    Trevor Bauer is just kinda Looney Tunes and I tend to tune out whatever he says.

    But I agree Snell should have known better.

    Yeah Bauer is goofy, but he’s vocal and has a presence. But even the Scherzer statement. He’s not wrong, but STOP NEGOTIATING THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA. KEEP IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Nothing good comes from this. Tony Clark should really have control of this so there’s a unified voice. 


    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  8. Owners are billionaires and even if they lose money this year, they will make it back over the coming years.

    Players are millionaires (some). But you need to think about the 40-man roster, not just those top 15 superstars when forming your opinion. Yes, Bryce Harper and Mike Trout will be fine. But how many 32 year-old 4th OFs and middle relievers, or 26 year-old career minor leaguers, are simply trying to make, for some of them, their last bit of money in this career? This cannot be overstated. Players have a small window to make their money. This isn’t true of owners.

    All that said...some of these players speaking out are really, really dumb. Guys like Snell and Trevor Bauer need to understand that many people are emotional, not logical. And while I agree with them that they shouldn’t be taking another pay cut here, many just hear “millionaires whining about money.” Take the temperature of the room, guys.

    They’re actually strengthening the owners’ position in two ways:

    1- You see it here and on social media. “Shut up and stop whining and play.” They’ve painted themselves the bad guys. The owners didn’t do that.

    2- I’m in a union. They’re weakening their stance, as they are making it clear there is not a unified front. The owners want nothing more than a split amongst the players.

    I want to back the players badly, and of course still am, but they continue to shoot themselves in the foot. 

    • Like 5
  9. 4 minutes ago, meh2 said:

    If that’s the case then that’s a big part of what I don’t understand. I don’t care what political party you are, if you’re governor and your state has the highest deaths, isn’t that a reflection on your actions? I know this is probably a terrible analogy, but if I were a manager of a department that had poor performance measures, I wouldn’t be looking to make them look even worse to blame it on the CEO. It’s my department that I’m responsible for.

    You’d think. Not sure what state you’re from, but everything is political and you’re trying to influence the middle. Here in Michigan:

    We have idiots going to the capitol fully armed blaming Whitmer for everything. When in all actuality her decisions basically mirrored Ohio’s, who turned out ok. Likely it got her first and spread quicker. 🤷🏽‍♂️

    Despite that, she’s made some head-scratching decisions. And no matter what they are, some people will defend her to the death and “if you want to blame someone, blame the incompetent Cheeto!” You know the drill.

    So people still try to finesse each way in whatever way they believe, and there’s no changing their minds.

  10. 7 minutes ago, meh2 said:

    I’m going to show my political naïveté here, but why does the number of COVID deaths become a political debate? Someone enlighten me as to what pushing up or pushing down the number of actual deaths does for one political party.

    “Never waste a good crisis.”

    The standard thought is that Republican governors are downplaying number of deaths, in an attempt to make it seem as if Trump did ok. “Everything is fine.” All while Democrat governors would be pushing higher death numbers that they can use against Trump. “What a disaster his decisions were!”

    There’s many who apparently think just one of these things is happening, lol. Knowing politics and politicians, I think that it’s quite possible both of these things are taking place in an election year, unfortunately. 

  11. 1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

    The seamless transition from "this is s overblown" to "okay, it's serious, but I still think the threat is exaggerated" to "both sides are juking the stats, who knows what to believe?" is something to behold.

    The projections that so many laughed for being doomsday scenarios were, if anything, on the conservative side, but a handful of anecdotes of possible misclassificaton is enough to outweigh volumes of evidence of confirmed cases and deaths. The scale of unexplained excess deaths dwarfs the evidence in the other direction, to the point that if some mystery cause were killing that many people, it'd be a bigger story than COVID itself.

    But one fishy story, and suddenly it's "both sides!@!" The divergence in standards of evidence shows a disregard for the truth that belies the guise of moderation and impartiality. 

    Or Tony, and hear me out here, different states are reporting differently, and many experts debate whether we are underreporting or overreporting. And often, there’s a political agenda behind it. That’s just the facts.

    Reporting deaths at home with no testing done as COVID deaths. Some say this is necessary to know the true impact. Others note that regular cardiac at-home deaths are down, so we shouldn’t count unknown as COVID deaths.

    I, personally, can see both sides of this argument. 


    • Like 2
  12. 5 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

    The one reason to defend the billionaire (and there should be, we shouldn’t just blindly pick rooting against the person with more money, it should be about right and wrong) is that they bring in so much revenue because of the risk involved. Not everyone has billions and is willing to front load money into teams/players/stadiums what have you.

    Well now is that risk.

    I don’t want to see anyone losing money hand over fist. But if they lose a little money (relatively speaking) this season, they’ll make it back. That’s what they signed up for. That’s why they bring in hundreds of millions in other years.

    Snell, like many players, was completely tone deaf with HOW he said things, no doubt. But they shouldn’t take ANOTHER cut on top of what was agreed upon. Both sides are negotiating in the media right now. I think it gets done, because it would be absolutely disastrous PR for the entire league if they squabble over and end up not playing over money during this time.  


    8 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

    More like he wants the money that was agreed upon. That sounds reasonable in my eyes. 

    100%. And I said as much in another thread. But then say as much. That’s the issue. “I’m afraid for my life!” is completely disingenuous and hurts the players’ position in the eyes of the public more than it helps.

  13. 12 minutes ago, supac720 said:

    Tbh, I have no problem with Snell's comments. I think it is different for pitchers. There are only so many bullets in those arms. Guys who were straight beasts like Brandon Webb and Tim Lincecum can lose it very quickly due to injury. Injury can develop if players deviate from their established routines for any reason. It really sucks and sure most common fans are gonna roll their eyes hard when there are much bigger concerns going on in the world. 

    That’s all true. But Blake pulled the “we’re risking our lives!” If that’s the case, you don’t play, period. But he won’t risk his life for some money, but more money will make it ok? Come on. His motivation is super transparent.

    • Like 7
  14. 16 minutes ago, KCTD25 said:

    Everyone has an agenda. Unfortunately some people think just the “other side” does. It’s sad, but this link (or many other similar examples) won’t change anything.

    Imagine if you will that it leaks that Fauci presented the President with two options: Lock down or herd immunity. Both a lot of deaths, but lock down stretches them out. Trump says, “The numbers will look bad for me, I’d rather have some deaths come after the election!”

    Whst percentage of people in this thread and around the country would all of the sudden be saying he should’ve went that route? Lol

    • Like 1
  • Create New...