• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Fantrax/CDM Fantasy Sports

bobknightfan said:
aceeight said:
You've mentioned several times that certain players might not "fit" on your team. I understand not wanting to get 5 guys who steal 45 bases or something....but I don't understand how 4/5-tool players wouldn't "fit" on anyone's roster. It seems to me that the "not fitting" thing would apply to having too many guys who only did one or two things well. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying, because I think that players like Gomez should fit on all rosters.

ETA: You could be right about the leadoff thing. There are advantages to hitting 4th or 5th, too. Of course, as you said, 3rd is probably the best overall spot....but if a player doesn't have much speed and isn't going to be running, I don't think that 5th is a bad spot, either. (That's why I don't understand Soler hitting 2nd. It takes away RBI opps...and he isn't going to be stealing bases, anyway. He will probably get a few more runs hitting 2nd, but I think either 4th or 5th would work better for a guy like that. Gomez is different. He can run...and he also hit 23 HRs last year...so he can hit just about anywhere from 1st to 5th.)
Click to expand...

Rare for a lead off batter to be a 4/5 tool player. I would rather Gomez hit 2-3-4. I think leading off only gets him a few more steals while batting later in the lineup gets him many more rbi's. (he will try to steal whenever he is on) Plus he is more likely to swing the bat later in the lineup..lead off guys just want to get on base. So I think he gets more HR/rbi's batting later with little change in SB. Therefore, he loses value leading off at 1410k in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Something else you should look at Bud. Why would the Brewers want him at the top of the order? Do they feel they don't need his power as much as his speed? They are committed to all those guys while we are cherry picking. Not to mention that defense is something else they take into consideration. This touches to why I am uncomfortable having too many hitters from the same team.
 
bobknightfan said:
aceeight said:
I don't disagree with that at all. I guess they have Walker hitting 4th because he has no speed & 20+ HR power. In my opinion, you don't want a guy hitting 1st or 2nd who can't run at all. That's good for Walker, but it doesn't help Gomez. McCutchen has a lock on 3rd. Marte would be a good leadoff guy if he didn't strike out a zillion times a year. I think 2nd would be a good spot for Gomez....or 4th & drop Walker to 5th. I want Gomez on my team, though, no matter where he is hitting.

And I still don't understand why the Cubs would want to have Soler hitting in the #2 slot.
Click to expand...

Who better than Soler to hit second? Castro no longer steals any bases. Hell, nobody on the Cubs will steal more than 15 bags or so. They are about sluggers, extra base hits, and home runs. I am not the least bit surprised Soler moved up in the lineup. No small ball on that side of Chicago.
Click to expand...
 
they SHOULD have Rizzo hit second, but that would make you guys' heads explode.
 
Like you said, maybe Gomez fits the bill. Mil. is managing a team that works best for them. We on the other hand are managing a team from all the players in baseball. Not only that, but we are trying to make sure we score well in every category.
 
bobknightfan said:
aceeight said:
Hitting 2nd...particularly in the NL...is not a good RBI spot. 4th or 5th is much better. I don't have Soler, but if I did I surely wouldn't want him batting 2nd.

ETA: And playing that kind of baseball is why the Cubs haven't won in more than 100 years now. It's like trying to win the NCAA Tournament without playing any defense.

(And speaking of the NCAAT, I am in three bracket pools. One of them, with the local paper, has 152 entries and gives away a large, flat screen TV. I need Duke - Wisconsin - Duke to win all 3 pools. If Notre Dame could have held on to beat Kentucky, all I would need would be Duke to win the tournament. Now, though, I also need Wisconsin to beat Kentucky.)
Click to expand...

You have Springer who is slated for second. Oh, and to say that is why the Cubs haven't won in more than a 100 years now is just stupid. If you can't do any better than that you should just stay silent....good grief Charlie Brown!
Click to expand...
 
what do you mean when you say the cubs lineup is "unbalanced?"
 
MHBDemon said:
what do you mean when you say the cubs lineup is "unbalanced?"
Click to expand...

yeah, they got a lot of good, solid hitters in that lineup -- 4 plus that can hit > .280 and run moderately. Also have a couple of those "mashers" you speak of. Not a lot of "Dexter Folwers" but they got one Dexter Fowler. Definitely lacking SB but they'll hit a lot of doubles and score a lot of runs this year. Pitching will keep 'em in games and they'll have a lot of wins

May not make the playoffs, but they'll be an exciting team

Go Cubs
 
bobknightfan said:
Well, for one thing from our recent discussions here, I don't think they have a guy who is suited to hit 2nd in their lineup...if they are thinking about hitting Soler there. The #2 hitter in the lineup needs to be able to handle the bat, advance runners in various ways (bunting, hitting to the opposite field, etc), and have some speed.....not a guy who is slow, primarily a power hitter and will probably strike out well over 100 times if he gets a full season's worth of at bats.
Click to expand...

I hope that you will keep a more open mind about this than RJKarl did, so here goes:

The old archetype for the #2 hitter is wrong. The job of all batters should be to not make an out. Managers should prefer to have a guy that is skilled at taking walks and getting hits than a guy who has good contact rates but is a free swinger.

But let's say you just flat disagree with that.

Each lineup spot, over the course of the season, gets about 2.5% more plate appearances than the spot following them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my best hitters to get more at bats over a season.

From Keith Law:

Conventional wisdom says you put your best overall hitter third, and to this day most teams still do just that. Tango et al, point out, again with historical data, that when you consider the plate appearances each lineup spot receives, as well as the frequency with which each lineup spot gets each base-out situation*, a team's best hitter belongs in the No. 2 spot: It comes up about 2.5 percent more often over the course of a year, and generates more value with almost every way of reaching base due to who's typically on base and with how many outs. That is, a single or a double or a walk from the No. 2 hitter is worth more in run-scoring potential than the same event from a No. 3 hitter. The numbers are all very close, but the No. 2 hitter gets those extra 15 or so plate appearances a year, and the No. 3 hitter, on average, leads off the fewest number of innings, which is another reason not to put your highest OBP guy there.
Click to expand...
 
There is also evidence that players are only marginally capable of directing their contact.

A good read from Grantland:
http://grantland.com/features/mlb-2014-situational-hitting-challenges-beating-the-shift/

Marginally. From 2010 to 2014, no. 2 hitters have sent the ball to the right side with a runner on second and no outs about 12 percent more often than they have with a runner on second and one out or two outs, relative to the leaguewide 10 percent increase cited above. Whatever benefit that slight difference confers isn’t worth the penalty teams absorb when they give more plate appearances to inferior hitters. Fortunately, this finally appears to be changing. No. 2 hitters have produced a park-adjusted OPS 5 percent higher than the league’s this season, their best showing since 1992. That’s still worse than no. 3, no. 4, and no. 5 hitters, and tied with leadoff guys, but it’s better than no. 6 hitters, which hasn’t typically been the case.
Click to expand...
 
bobknightfan said:
Well, since your team is in the same league with one of my teams, I look forward to seeing how your theories work in real life. :)
Click to expand...

??

Has nothing to do with fantasy baseball. How in the hell would anything that occurred in our league prove or disprove my argument?
 
MHBDemon said:
I hope that you will keep a more open mind about this than RJKarl did, so here goes:

The old archetype for the #2 hitter is wrong. The job of all batters should be to not make an out. Managers should prefer to have a guy that is skilled at taking walks and getting hits than a guy who has good contact rates but is a free swinger.

But let's say you just flat disagree with that.

Each lineup spot, over the course of the season, gets about 2.5% more plate appearances than the spot following them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my best hitters to get more at bats over a season.

From Keith Law:
Click to expand...

I posted an article last season that talked about this very thing. It talked about how batting second was more valuable than batting cleanup. Batting second is a great place for a slugger who hits extra base hits. (that is why Springer is hitting second..not because he is a base stealer) You want to have Rizzo come up with somebody on not with 2 outs. If he doesn't get on then your typically slow 4th hitter leads off the next inning. Oh, and Soler may not be a base stealer but he runs the bases well. The Angels seem to agree with this way of thinking since they have Trout batting second.

BKF, you should be more concerned with Toronto "setting the table" with Russell batting second. That makes zero sense to me. I suspect that will change rather quickly.
 
Russell has a .354 career OBP. He is fine at the 2 spot, though they should probably hit Bautista second.
 
I'm actually quite mindful to always post the sources of what I am debating. I'm not as smart as the people doing the research, but I'm smart enough to understand it and accept it. From my point of view, you have no interest in reading what I posted.

Those sources I've posted demonstrate that results do validate theories. Where is your support?
 
Bud, I apologize for my post to you yesterday. I shouldn't have talked to you that way just because we disagreed.

My only excuse is that I had a miserable day. Had 2 regulators for power windows go out in the same day. ($600) Then set my glasses/cell phone on my bumper while helping someone and then drove away.
 
bobknightfan said:
I'm really not interested in arguing with you, MHB, because you are never going to be wrong.....so I will just be content to compete against you. You employ your theories and I will employ mine....and we will see how things turn out.
Click to expand...

But I was talking about baseball, not fantasy baseball. The results of our league have no meaning in this context. If you can explain how they do, I'm all ears.
 
bobknightfan said:
No problem. I kind of asked for that, anyway. :) After 18 years of back & forth, something like that just rolls off my back.

(Sounds like you had a bad day. I know about that losing your glasses. Back in 2002 I was invited, along with about 50 other sales reps from around the country, to attend an American Funds weekend seminar at their LA headquarters. When I got to LAX, I went to the restroom to wash my face and freshen up. Since I used my glasses more for reading than "seeing off", I didn't realize that I had left them on the counter in that restroom until I was in a cab on the way to the motel. Spent a miserable three days trying to read during those classes. They finally got me some cheap reading glasses, but they didn't work very well. BTW, that was the time that I got to talk to John Wooden for about 10 minutes after our last class. I didn't know it, but American Funds brought him in for an hour to talk to the class every time they did that...about twice a year. He was around 90 at the time and physically frail, but his mind was still sharp as a tack.)
Click to expand...

I remember when that happened to you. I also remember making a joke saying one of the other reps painted a picture in your new glasses and that you just thought you were talking to John Wooden. :)
 
bobknightfan said:
Sounds like they have had an ongoing problem there. My question is this: Shouldn't the organization management be held accountable for a long-term problem like that at such an important position?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? The new manager is addressing the problem. One of the problems is that the number 2 hitter is more important then once thought. This is not just a theory from MHB. When I posted that article about the importance of the number 2 hitter we talked about it over several post. You even agreed with this way of thinking but now seem to have regressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top