|
Post by RCH Ryan Grass on Apr 18, 2004 16:13:59 GMT -6
I'm surprised the whole town hasn't killed themselves by now.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 18, 2004 16:31:17 GMT -6
Yeah, well I suppose they have the hockey team.
|
|
|
Post by RCH Ryan Grass on Apr 18, 2004 16:32:22 GMT -6
That's probably the only thing keeping them going.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 18, 2004 16:33:56 GMT -6
Maybe they are all robots over there and the hockey team is a coverup.
|
|
|
Post by RCH Ryan Grass on Apr 18, 2004 16:52:26 GMT -6
Again with the conspiracies!
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 18, 2004 23:50:53 GMT -6
I only said that just to see your reaction. I made up a conspiracy for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by RCH Ryan Grass on Apr 19, 2004 14:15:01 GMT -6
Like you always do.....
|
|
ZacharyKlaas
Been Here Awhile
Totally Awesome Guy!
Posts: 103
|
Post by ZacharyKlaas on Apr 19, 2004 14:32:00 GMT -6
Here's a baseball argument starter - what do you think about Barry Bonds being a productive hitter. I think he isn't. The MLB website notes that Barry Bonds hit four home runs in three Giants games against the Dodgers, and the Giants lost all three games. Why aren't the Giants winning with Bonds' alleged contributions? How is it that someone can hit 73 homeruns as Bonds did in 2001 and only get 137 runs batted in out of that? He basically kills Giant rallies by hitting solo home runs. No one on when he hits 'em, but no one on after he hits 'em either. Part of this you can blame on those who hit before Bonds, but I think Johnny-One-Note home run hitters are the unseen rally killers, and if he could turn some of those into doubles or triples, maybe the Giants could keep the pressure on pitchers and win a few more ball games. Am I being too cranky?
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 19, 2004 16:02:21 GMT -6
It is funny... Here's a baseball argument starter - what do you think about Barry Bonds being a productive hitter. I think he isn't. The MLB website notes that Barry Bonds hit four home runs in three Giants games against the Dodgers, and the Giants lost all three games. Why aren't the Giants winning with Bonds' alleged contributions? How is it that someone can hit 73 homeruns as Bonds did in 2001 and only get 137 runs batted in out of that? He basically kills Giant rallies by hitting solo home runs. No one on when he hits 'em, but no one on after he hits 'em either. Part of this you can blame on those who hit before Bonds, but I think Johnny-One-Note home run hitters are the unseen rally killers, and if he could turn some of those into doubles or triples, maybe the Giants could keep the pressure on pitchers and win a few more ball games. Am I being too cranky? It's absolutely true. Everyone is blinded by the amount of homeruns he hits. It is probably better to have a player like Albert Pujols. Barry only hits for power, while Pujols is an all around hitter. I thought Pujols should have won instead of Bonds for MVP last year. Like the last Cardinals game, Pujols was sooo very very close to hitting a game winning homerun in the bottom of the ninth. Even then, he doesn't hit for homeruns he hits to get on base and drive runs in. But I probably think that because I'm a biased Cardinals fan.
|
|
ZacharyKlaas
Been Here Awhile
Totally Awesome Guy!
Posts: 103
|
Post by ZacharyKlaas on Apr 19, 2004 19:03:10 GMT -6
No, I totally agree - Pujols is vastly underrated.
I've always thought they should have a statistic for how well players set up other players on their team, to deflate the whole "one-man franchise" thing. The Oakland A's, in particular, always seem to make their team do lots more together than any of those guys could ever do separately. (Probably because of their GM, Billy Beane...any of you ever heard of the book "Moneyball" about him? He seems to be the only person in baseball with any serious fix on what actually wins baseball games.)
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 19, 2004 19:53:50 GMT -6
Hmm, I thought I put a reply but obviously I probably made that up in my imagination.
Anyways, I hate Bonds. He does two things: hits a homer or gets a strikeout. What a loser. I wouldn't have him on my fantasy baseball team and if I did I would trade him away. He would make me lose in strikeouts.
So, I think we should have a Natopian fantasy baseball league. But, we need 4 people. We can still open one until the end of the month. So if you are interested, I'll see if I can find anyone to be in it. Ryan? Mr. Klaas?
If you guys are interested, I can set up the league and then we could pick a draft date and scoring categories.
|
|
ZacharyKlaas
Been Here Awhile
Totally Awesome Guy!
Posts: 103
|
Post by ZacharyKlaas on Apr 19, 2004 20:51:22 GMT -6
It's surprising how little I know about rotisserie/fantasy baseball leagues. I usually tend more towards Strat-o-Matic type simulation games or "dice baseball".
I know (or think I know) that fantasy baseball usually involves having a set budget and picking players to be on your team, then winning or losing games on the basis of how those players play in the real-world baseball games they're in.
How would this fantasy league be set up? What would I need to know?
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 19, 2004 22:40:14 GMT -6
Well, if I do make a league it will be a head to head league. It has the same basic concept of having scoring based on how players do in real life but there are many differences from what you are talking about.
A head to head league has multiple scoring categories. For example, one of the categories for batting is strikeouts. The players on my team get a total of 20 strikeouts that week while the players on your team get 19. You win in that category. So in other words you want to win in the most categories. My current league has 18 categories and everyone likes that alot. The only complaint we usually get is the strikeout category from people who have Bonds or Blalock. There are at least 30 categories that you can pick from. Also, you can pick what player positions you want. My league has a regular lineup with an additional utility player. Also, it has I think a total of 7 pitchers maybe. Two have to be closers and two have to be starters. But, you can always change that to what you want. 6 bench spots are nice, I wish I put seven though... Also, there is one DL spot for players on the DL.
There is no budget. It's alot more simple than that. The way you initially get players is from the draft system. You rank the players in order of who you want, and the computer picks your players. You always hope to be the first one in the draft so you can have the first players you picked. Then the draft rotates and gives everyone players. So, first I pick Pujols, then someone picks Bonds, then someone gets Arod and on like that. It's pretty simple once you get used to it. After the draft there is a three day waiting period (I think) and then you can pick up free agents and drop any players. Also, you can have as many trades as you want.
I'm trying to think what else there is... If you have any more questions, I can most likely answer them and there is also the help page that I can get the link for. I use the Yahoo fantasy site as it is the easiest and best of all, it's free.
I probably can go on and on about it, but we can't do anything unless we have at least 4 commited players.
|
|
ZacharyKlaas
Been Here Awhile
Totally Awesome Guy!
Posts: 103
|
Post by ZacharyKlaas on Apr 20, 2004 8:54:55 GMT -6
Well, what you described sounds interesting. Count me in.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Apr 20, 2004 13:44:36 GMT -6
Ok then we need Ryan and someone else at the least.
|
|