Neowin Fantasy Baseball Season 2007


Recommended Posts

I was wondering if it'd be possible to remove hits as a category? By adding in hits, it gives the batters an extra category making them more valuable than pitchers. 6 cats for hitters, 5 categories for pitchers.

By giving hitters an advantage, it becomes possible to just forego all pitching and focus only on hitting and still win the entire league. While that may be really hard to do, it is possible, where as if it's only 5 categories for hitting and 5 for pitching, then you need a balance across your entire team.

I can live with things either way, but just felt that having the same number of categories between hitting and pitching makes things more fair.

Edited by lawtai
I was wondering if it'd be possible to remove hits as a category? By adding in hits, it gives the batters an extra category making them more valuable than pitchers. 6 cats for hitters, 5 categories for pitchers.

By giving hitters an advantage, it becomes possible to just forego all pitching and focus only on hitting and still win the entire league. While that may be really hard to do, it is possible, where as if it's only 5 categories for hitting and 5 for pitching, then you need a balance across your entire team.

I can live with things either way, but just felt that having the same number of categories between hitting and pitching makes things more fair.

While this change would likely help me, I don't agree with making scoring changes after the draft.

I assume that late reliever guys (6th to 8th inning guys) who are not closers (and thus don't have high save numbers) are not of particularly high value. Am I wrong? Highly ranked pitchers seem to be either starters or closers.

It's probably the same in real life if you look at pitcher salaries. I guess the best pitchers either become starters or closers although the ranking seem exaggerated in Yahoo. There still is real life value to a good set up guy.

I was wondering if it'd be possible to remove hits as a category? By adding in hits, it gives the batters an extra category making them more valuable than pitchers. 6 cats for hitters, 5 categories for pitchers.

By giving hitters an advantage, it becomes possible to just forego all pitching and focus only on hitting and still win the entire league. While that may be really hard to do, it is possible, where as if it's only 5 categories for hitting and 5 for pitching, then you need a balance across your entire team.

I can live with things either way, but just felt that having the same number of categories between hitting and pitching makes things more fair.

I don't think I can change it now and I'm not sure I would want to. I'll consider it more next year, though.

Well, I can change it. If anything, I would remove OBP, but I need a consensus. IMO, we should just leave it, though.

yea I believe you had the first pick

I don't think I can change it now and I'm not sure I would want to. I'll consider it more next year, though.

Well, I can change it. If anything, I would remove OBP, but I need a consensus. IMO, we should just leave it, though.

I would vote for removing hits over OBP first, since OBP will atleast take into account walks, which isn't accounted for anywhere else. I'm fine with leaving things the way they are.

Just wanted to make a point to try and make pitching and hitting even, which I believe adds a little more strategy to things than allowing for one to focus mainly on one area to try and win.

Messing with scoring post-draft just doesn't fly. If you thought it wasn't fair, you should've said it before the draft. Otherwise everyone's already drafted based on what they knew would count in the standings. I know I would've made a few different picks if different stats counted.

Messing with scoring post-draft just doesn't fly. If you thought it wasn't fair, you should've said it before the draft. Otherwise everyone's already drafted based on what they knew would count in the standings. I know I would've made a few different picks if different stats counted.

Yeah, don't worry, nothing's going to change. It was an idea and a pretty good one. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait to consider it until next year. That's all.

In fantasy, those middle guys can really help keep your era and whip down given their short outings and frequency of usage. They helped me a lot last year.

Well, I picked Derrick Turnbow up from free agency. Francisco Cordero is now the accepted closer which means that Turnbow probably won't get a lot of saves. Hopefully he is still useful to me. He had a horrible 2006 (at least since July) but I'm hoping that he can return to his 2005 form.

I had originally planned to make this move when I first got up this morning but I kinda forgot. Luckily he was still available (I just made the move now). Of course, that also makes me wonder why nobody else grabbed him. :s

I had originally planned to make this move when I first got up this morning but I kinda forgot. Luckily he was still available (I just made the move now). Of course, that also makes me wonder why nobody else grabbed him. :s

I was going to pick him up last night but since I have 3 closers and enough good RP's, I decided to leave him.

I was going to pick him up last night but since I have 3 closers and enough good RP's, I decided to leave him.

He's available again. I took a gamble on Eric Gagne. 3 surgeries later, is there anything left of the original? We'll see.

The big move that I wanted was Mark Markakis. I grabbed him on waivers just to make sure. He is, apparently, a good young fielding prospect and I am desperate for outfielders. I was hoping that post-draft surplus of outfielders would get dumped but he was the only one that appeared. Still, I'll take what I can get.

I also made a bunch of other moves. It took me a while to figure out why Dotel had an O-Rank much higher than his 2005 and 2006 ranks. He wasn't young enough to expect a lot of improvement from. I assume now that it is because he is being given the closer role when previously he was a set up guy. The prospect of SVs must do wonders for his O-rank.

  • 2 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
    • it dosnt support onprem exchange. it dosnt support mapi-calls. the views are all worse/limited. its slower. it cant see public folder calendars. we already have webmail. the list of other missing features is pretty huge but i only see it when customers call to say their email isnt working, and 9/10 times its cause they accidentality changed to outlooknew(new). Hold the line everyone!
    • yeah, this looks beautiful. Damn this winter's going to be great.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!