derek245583
Footballguy
Hopefully Matt Holiday and Tony LaRussa go out on the town tonight.
And I hope Tony is driving.
And I hope Tony is driving.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***OFFICIAL*** Cardinals vs. Dodgers Playoff Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter curta269
- Start date
The Kansas Comet
Footballguy
I prefer Ronnie Belliard myself. Still stunned by that win.
Shakespeare
Footballguy
Mark but the badges of these men, my lords,Then say if they be true. This misshapen knave—His mother was a witch. . . .These three have robb'd me, and this demi-devil—For he's a ******* one—had plotted with themTo take my life. Two of these fellows youMust know and own; this thing of darkness IAcknowledge mine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Maroney=Sped
Footballguy
Fixed. It's been a long time coming, too.Matt "Buckner" "Niedenfuer" HollidayThe Goat nowMatt Holiday
Maroney=Sped
Footballguy
I'm certianly like the two Raffy's in the middle infield for the Dodgers.
Mr. Brownstone
Footballguy
Nice use of a Niedenfuer reference here.Fixed. It's been a long time coming, too.Matt "Buckner" "Niedenfuer" HollidayThe Goat nowMatt Holiday
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
And to me. He does not deserve to wear a Cardinals uniform. Let him go play for the Cubs so he choke on a team that is used to it.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
The loss yesterday was bad, but then Wainwright pitched great and Franklin came in to set Holliday up as a goat, now I was really down. But hey Mizzou will at least win with a 9-0 lead at half...ooopssssssssss......dammit, I am not having a good couple of days. My sports life is like a country song right now.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
Wrigley
Footballguy
Maroney=Sped
Footballguy
You actually have to catch the ball?
Maroney=Sped
Footballguy
Yep. He certainly had to quickly sort out exactly which ball he needed to throw back to the infield.Gadfly said:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
C'mon Birds.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Looks like TLR is mixing it up and batting Ludwick 2nd today. He is obviously hoping for more power and production in front of Pujols so the Dodgers cannot pitch around him as much. Either way, the offense needs a jump-start, so mixing things up like this was almost a necessity. We'll see how it works out...
RnR
Footballguy
I think this was the proper alignment from the start. Not much to be gained from Ryan hitting 2nd, he's our #8 hitter.
Mr. Brownstone
Footballguy
Nice series by the Boys in Blue. 
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing.
Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer:
-2 for 12
-The worst error in Cardinals history
-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer:
-2 for 12
-The worst error in Cardinals history
-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
ytsejam
Footballguy
That's quite a sample size you're working with there.Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing. Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer: -2 for 12-The worst error in Cardinals history-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
Michael Brown
Footballguy
You're right, Holliday was awesome in this series.Seriously what is people's hang-up with sample sizes? In the sample size we have to work with, Holliday was dog crap. He's not saying Holliday is a terrible player, just that in this series he was horrible. And he's right!That's quite a sample size you're working with there.Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing. Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer: -2 for 12-The worst error in Cardinals history-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
You're right, Holliday was awesome in this series.Seriously what is people's hang-up with sample sizes? In the sample size we have to work with, Holliday was dog crap. He's not saying Holliday is a terrible player, just that in this series he was horrible. And he's right!That's quite a sample size you're working with there.Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing. Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer: -2 for 12-The worst error in Cardinals history-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
Holliday was essentially a rent-a-player, and they gave up a lot of for him. He was brought here to solidify the lineup for the playoffs...and he stunk it up in the playoffs.
Maroney=Sped
Footballguy
I guess I'm left to wonder why a shakeup of a non-producing lineup wouldn't have caused LaRussa to bat Holliday in front of Pujols. It's what the Dodgers have done all year with Ethier and Manny, with obvious results for Ethier, and all while not costing Manny pitches because quite often there's guys on in front of him. Just throwing it out there.
RnR
Footballguy
I'd say the real question is why Ludwick wasn't slotted in the 2-hole all season. In 2008, his line was .339/.407/.701 from 146 PA's in the 2-hole. Game 3 was the first time all season he started a game as the #2 hitter.
ytsejam
Footballguy
It's really disturbing that you get paid by this website for your analysis.You're right, Holliday was awesome in this series.Seriously what is people's hang-up with sample sizes? In the sample size we have to work with, Holliday was dog crap. He's not saying Holliday is a terrible player, just that in this series he was horrible. And he's right!That's quite a sample size you're working with there.Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing. Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer: -2 for 12-The worst error in Cardinals history-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Dude, not for nothing but what was wrong with what I said? Are you seriously going to try arguing that Holliday was good in the series?Go back and re-read the original post. Nowhere did it say that Holliday is a bad player or that he's bad in the clutch or that he's a terrible fielder...all he said was that IN THIS SERIES, he was.Now go back and re-read MY post. Nowhere did I say anything about Holliday being a bad player or that he's bad in the clutch or that he's a terrible fielder...all I said was that IN THIS SERIES, he was.Now go back and re-read YOUR post. You claimed that the OP wasn't using a very large sample size. Well my friend, you are sadly mistaken. He was using the largest sample size possible (the entire thing) for the basis of his comments (that Holliday was bad in this series, which um, by the way, he still was).It's really disturbing that you are trying to argue a point that is smacking you in the face with truth, but your own stubbornness and/or lack of reading comprehension is preventing you from understanding it.It's really disturbing that you get paid by this website for your analysis.You're right, Holliday was awesome in this series.Seriously what is people's hang-up with sample sizes? In the sample size we have to work with, Holliday was dog crap. He's not saying Holliday is a terrible player, just that in this series he was horrible. And he's right!That's quite a sample size you're working with there.Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing. Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer: -2 for 12-The worst error in Cardinals history-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
ytsejam
Footballguy
If Matt Holliday hits a line-drive that is snared by leaping infielder, did he have a bad at-bat?Dude, not for nothing but what was wrong with what I said? Are you seriously going to try arguing that Holliday was good in the series?Go back and re-read the original post. Nowhere did it say that Holliday is a bad player or that he's bad in the clutch or that he's a terrible fielder...all he said was that IN THIS SERIES, he was.Now go back and re-read MY post. Nowhere did I say anything about Holliday being a bad player or that he's bad in the clutch or that he's a terrible fielder...all I said was that IN THIS SERIES, he was.Now go back and re-read YOUR post. You claimed that the OP wasn't using a very large sample size. Well my friend, you are sadly mistaken. He was using the largest sample size possible (the entire thing) for the basis of his comments (that Holliday was bad in this series, which um, by the way, he still was).It's really disturbing that you are trying to argue a point that is smacking you in the face with truth, but your own stubbornness and/or lack of reading comprehension is preventing you from understanding it.It's really disturbing that you get paid by this website for your analysis.You're right, Holliday was awesome in this series.Seriously what is people's hang-up with sample sizes? In the sample size we have to work with, Holliday was dog crap. He's not saying Holliday is a terrible player, just that in this series he was horrible. And he's right!That's quite a sample size you're working with there.Pathetic performance by the Cardinals tonight. It was like they just laid down once the Dodgers took the lead and they failed to score with the bases loaded in the bottom of the first. Very disappointing. Oh, and Matt Holliday...ya know, the guy who was brought here to protect Pujols, and be a big time playoff performer: -2 for 12-The worst error in Cardinals history-Following the six times Pujols got on base in this series (3 hits and 3 walks), Holliday was 0 for 5, with one HBP
Michael Brown
Footballguy
No, just like he doesn't have a good AB just because a flare happens to drop in. Your point?
Michael Brown
Footballguy
By the way, if you're going to use this opportunity to "school" me in sabermetrics and Moneyball-type philosophies, I feel like I should point out that it's not 2004 and that everyone is aware of that stuff. And for the 800th time, no one is saying Holliday isn't good and CAN'T perform in the clutch; just that he DIDN'T.
I think a better question would be this: If Matt Holliday goes 2-12 and commits a brutal error, is that the same as going 8-12 with no errors?
I seriously don't think you understand the OP's complaints.
I think a better question would be this: If Matt Holliday goes 2-12 and commits a brutal error, is that the same as going 8-12 with no errors?
I seriously don't think you understand the OP's complaints.
ytsejam
Footballguy
It's not really a matter of sabrmetrics, and I don't know if you've read "Moneyball", but nothing in that book applies to this situation. What happens to a baseball after its put in play is subjected to so much randomness that a statement like "Matt Holliday had a bad series" or "Matt Holliday didn't deliver in the clutch" becomes meaningless. It makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games' worth of AB's. And the notion of a player being "clutch" has been statistically disproven.Can't wait to see Roddy White and Miles Austin at the top of your WR rankings going forward.Michael Brown said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Brown
Footballguy
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you, because you seem like you're just getting off by insulting me for what appears to be no reason at all, but I'll play along.You mentioned that the principles of Moneyball don't apply here, then in the very next sentence you make a statement that is one of the very foundations of the book (that what happens to a baseball once its put in play is subjected to so much randomness). So I think it did apply, but whatever.Now, as for your statement. It would still appear that you don't understand the fundamental truth in his statement. You say it makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games worth of ABs. But for about the 10th time, NOBODY IS DENIGRATING HIM! You're trying to use a principle that I agree with 100% in theory, and trying to apply it to an argument that it won't fit into.You're right when you say that you can't use a three game sample to determine whether a guy IS good or not. But you can use a three game sample to determine if a guy had good results. And the simple fact is, Holliday did not hit 10 screaming liners in his outs. He had strikeouts, weak pop-ups, weak groundouts, etc...nothing that was very subject to randomness. In this case, the sample size benefits my argument because it's easy to remember the 12 ABs and recall that never once was he a victim of "bad luck". He just didn't hit the ball well.Second, it hasn't been statistically proven that BABIP is a true indicator of bad luck. Sometimes, players have a very high or very low BABIP and it has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with poor strike zone recognition. If you're always hitting in a 1-2 or 0-2 hole, you're not going to take as aggressive a swing as you would on 3-1 or 2-0. So while a ball in play is subjected to randomness, it's not the be-all, end-all you make it out to be.And when you factor in the dropped flyball on top of the lack of offensive results/success/whatever you want to call it, the fact is that he did not do what was needed of him for the Cardinals to move on. I really hope we aren't just arguing semantics over here, but that's what it's starting to feel like. I just want you to know one more time though in case you forgot...I THINK MATT HOLLIDAY IS VERY GOOD AND THAT THE NLDS IS IN NO WAY INDICATIVE OF HIS ABILITIES. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK YOU CAN MEASURE THE ABILITIES OF A PLAYER BASED ON A THREE GAME SAMPLE SIZE. However, if a player strikes out in one at-bat, did they do their job? No. They might have fought off some tough pitches and fouled off 10 in a row and hit a bunch of screaming liners that went just foul...but at the end of the day, they did not do their ultimate job, which was to get on base. It doesn't mean they are a failure, or bad at baseball. It doesn't even mean they had a bad AB. It's the smallest sample size possible, but you can still look at it as an isolated AB and conclude that IN THAT INSTANCE, the player did not do his job. Just like Holliday here. He didn't do his job IN THIS SERIES.Finally, it says something about your own knowledge base that you group Roddy White in the same sentence as Miles Austin as far as their respective projections moving forward. For the record, I was actively trying to acquire White in all of my leagues this week and I am not going to even put in a waiver claim on Austin in any of them.It's not really a matter of sabrmetrics, and I don't know if you've read "Moneyball", but nothing in that book applies to this situation. What happens to a baseball after its put in play is subjected to so much randomness that a statement like "Matt Holliday had a bad series" or "Matt Holliday didn't deliver in the clutch" becomes meaningless. It makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games' worth of AB's. And the notion of a player being "clutch" has been statistically disproven.Can't wait to see Roddy White and Miles Austin at the top of your WR rankings going forward.Michael Brown said:
Last edited by a moderator:
ytsejam
Footballguy
1) I'll start with the ending and go backwards: Your employers seem to disagree with you re: Austin:I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you, because you seem like you're just getting off by insulting me for what appears to be no reason at all, but I'll play along.You mentioned that the principles of Moneyball don't apply here, then in the very next sentence you make a statement that is one of the very foundations of the book (that what happens to a baseball once its put in play is subjected to so much randomness). So I think it did apply, but whatever.It's not really a matter of sabrmetrics, and I don't know if you've read "Moneyball", but nothing in that book applies to this situation. What happens to a baseball after its put in play is subjected to so much randomness that a statement like "Matt Holliday had a bad series" or "Matt Holliday didn't deliver in the clutch" becomes meaningless. It makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games' worth of AB's. And the notion of a player being "clutch" has been statistically disproven.Can't wait to see Roddy White and Miles Austin at the top of your WR rankings going forward.Michael Brown said:
Now, as for your statement. It would still appear that you don't understand the fundamental truth in his statement. You say it makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games worth of ABs. But for about the 10th time, NOBODY IS DENIGRATING HIM! You're trying to use a principle that I agree with 100% in theory, and trying to apply it to an argument that it won't fit into.
You're right when you say that you can't use a three game sample to determine whether a guy IS good or not. But you can use a three game sample to determine if a guy had good results. And the simple fact is, Holliday did not hit 10 screaming liners in his outs. He had strikeouts, weak pop-ups, weak groundouts, etc...nothing that was very subject to randomness. In this case, the sample size benefits my argument because it's easy to remember the 12 ABs and recall that never once was he a victim of "bad luck". He just didn't hit the ball well.
Second, it hasn't been statistically proven that BABIP is a true indicator of bad luck. Sometimes, players have a very high or very low BABIP and it has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with poor strike zone recognition. If you're always hitting in a 1-2 or 0-2 hole, you're not going to take as aggressive a swing as you would on 3-1 or 2-0. So while a ball in play is subjected to randomness, it's not the be-all, end-all you make it out to be.
And when you factor in the dropped flyball on top of the lack of offensive results/success/whatever you want to call it, the fact is that he did not do what was needed of him for the Cardinals to move on. I really hope we aren't just arguing semantics over here, but that's what it's starting to feel like. I just want you to know one more time though in case you forgot...I THINK MATT HOLLIDAY IS VERY GOOD AND THAT THE NLDS IS IN NO WAY INDICATIVE OF HIS ABILITIES. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK YOU CAN MEASURE THE ABILITIES OF A PLAYER BASED ON A THREE GAME SAMPLE SIZE. However, if a player strikes out in one at-bat, did they do their job? No. They might have fought off some tough pitches and fouled off 10 in a row and hit a bunch of screaming liners that went just foul...but at the end of the day, they did not do their ultimate job, which was to get on base. It doesn't mean they are a failure, or bad at baseball. It doesn't even mean they had a bad AB. It's the smallest sample size possible, but you can still look at it as an isolated AB and conclude that IN THAT INSTANCE, the player did not do his job. Just like Holliday here. He didn't do his job IN THIS SERIES.
Finally, it says something about your own knowledge base that you group Roddy White in the same sentence as Miles Austin as far as their respective projections moving forward. For the record, I was actively trying to acquire White in all of my leagues this week and I am not going to even put in a waiver claim on Austin in any of them.
LINKI'm hoping all of the leagues you play in are fairly shallow. I'd be interested in hearing which bench players you'd keep over Austin, but whatever.
2) I've only discussed Holliday's performance at the plate. The error was egregiously bad, a MLB player should catch that ball 100% of the time, and instead it went for a 2-base error. It's no worse because it happened in the 9th as opposed to if it had happened in the third, but it's still bad.
3) Attempting to hit a baseball is an exercise primarily rooted in futility, unlike catching flyballs. You see it as a simplistic failure/success dichotomy, I don't. I don't think Mark Sanchez "didn't do his job" because the hail mary at the end of the Jets/Dolphins game was incomplete.
To wit, here are some RC/27's (or, put simply, how many runs a hypothetical team of 9 player X's would have scored in a 9 inning game) for several players the LAD/STL series:
Andre Ethier: 30.15
Carlos Gonzalez: 24.70
Colby Rasmus: 13.24
Yorvit Torrealba: 8.96
Albert Pujols: 7.30
Ryan Ludwick: 5.69
Casey Blake: 4.88
Russell Martin: 3.34
Matt Holliday: 3.29
Troy Tulowitzki: 2.01
Matt Kemp: 1.38
Brendan Ryan: -0.81 (!?!)
Some results are good, some are bad. My point is that to try and make any substantive statement, be it "Matt Holliday stunk" or "Andre Ethier is the greatest player in baseball history" or "Matt Kemp/Holliday didn't do his job at the plate" or "NLDS Matt Holliday would hit 50+ HR in a 162-game season", is ridiculous and meaningless.
4) I was unclear and vague mentioning BABIP. I was referring to hitter BABIP, which is a somewhat-different animal than pitcher-BABIP. But that's for another time.
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Well, that's the precise reason why most people like discussing baseball. You seem to like discussing baseball so you can show everyone how yours is the only way to think, whereas I tend to be more open-minded about it all. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and won't automatically dismiss them just because they don't fall precisely in line with what I believe.I also disagree that an error is no worse in the 9th than in the 3rd. That's treating real-life baseball like video game baseball. What the 100% stat guys don't factor in are the emotions involved. The team is one out away from getting out of the third inning, and a player makes an error that allows for several runs to eventually score and cost his team the lead. Sure, it's bothersome but you've got 6 more innings to make up that ground. Now that same play happens in the 9th, and suddenly you've got one set of at-bats to make up the difference. If you don't think that's infinitely more stressful, then you've never played the game.ytsejam said:1) I'll start with the ending and go backwards: Your employers seem to disagree with you re: Austin:Michael Brown said:I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you, because you seem like you're just getting off by insulting me for what appears to be no reason at all, but I'll play along.You mentioned that the principles of Moneyball don't apply here, then in the very next sentence you make a statement that is one of the very foundations of the book (that what happens to a baseball once its put in play is subjected to so much randomness). So I think it did apply, but whatever.It's not really a matter of sabrmetrics, and I don't know if you've read "Moneyball", but nothing in that book applies to this situation. What happens to a baseball after its put in play is subjected to so much randomness that a statement like "Matt Holliday had a bad series" or "Matt Holliday didn't deliver in the clutch" becomes meaningless. It makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games' worth of AB's. And the notion of a player being "clutch" has been statistically disproven.Can't wait to see Roddy White and Miles Austin at the top of your WR rankings going forward.Michael Brown said:
Now, as for your statement. It would still appear that you don't understand the fundamental truth in his statement. You say it makes no sense to denigrate the guy based on 3 games worth of ABs. But for about the 10th time, NOBODY IS DENIGRATING HIM! You're trying to use a principle that I agree with 100% in theory, and trying to apply it to an argument that it won't fit into.
You're right when you say that you can't use a three game sample to determine whether a guy IS good or not. But you can use a three game sample to determine if a guy had good results. And the simple fact is, Holliday did not hit 10 screaming liners in his outs. He had strikeouts, weak pop-ups, weak groundouts, etc...nothing that was very subject to randomness. In this case, the sample size benefits my argument because it's easy to remember the 12 ABs and recall that never once was he a victim of "bad luck". He just didn't hit the ball well.
Second, it hasn't been statistically proven that BABIP is a true indicator of bad luck. Sometimes, players have a very high or very low BABIP and it has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with poor strike zone recognition. If you're always hitting in a 1-2 or 0-2 hole, you're not going to take as aggressive a swing as you would on 3-1 or 2-0. So while a ball in play is subjected to randomness, it's not the be-all, end-all you make it out to be.
And when you factor in the dropped flyball on top of the lack of offensive results/success/whatever you want to call it, the fact is that he did not do what was needed of him for the Cardinals to move on. I really hope we aren't just arguing semantics over here, but that's what it's starting to feel like. I just want you to know one more time though in case you forgot...I THINK MATT HOLLIDAY IS VERY GOOD AND THAT THE NLDS IS IN NO WAY INDICATIVE OF HIS ABILITIES. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK YOU CAN MEASURE THE ABILITIES OF A PLAYER BASED ON A THREE GAME SAMPLE SIZE. However, if a player strikes out in one at-bat, did they do their job? No. They might have fought off some tough pitches and fouled off 10 in a row and hit a bunch of screaming liners that went just foul...but at the end of the day, they did not do their ultimate job, which was to get on base. It doesn't mean they are a failure, or bad at baseball. It doesn't even mean they had a bad AB. It's the smallest sample size possible, but you can still look at it as an isolated AB and conclude that IN THAT INSTANCE, the player did not do his job. Just like Holliday here. He didn't do his job IN THIS SERIES.
Finally, it says something about your own knowledge base that you group Roddy White in the same sentence as Miles Austin as far as their respective projections moving forward. For the record, I was actively trying to acquire White in all of my leagues this week and I am not going to even put in a waiver claim on Austin in any of them.LINKI'm hoping all of the leagues you play in are fairly shallow. I'd be interested in hearing which bench players you'd keep over Austin, but whatever.
2) I've only discussed Holliday's performance at the plate. The error was egregiously bad, a MLB player should catch that ball 100% of the time, and instead it went for a 2-base error. It's no worse because it happened in the 9th as opposed to if it had happened in the third, but it's still bad.
My point is that to try and make any substantive statement, be it "Matt Holliday stunk" or "Andre Ethier is the greatest player in baseball history" or "Matt Kemp/Holliday didn't do his job at the plate" or "NLDS Matt Holliday would hit 50+ HR in a 162-game season", is ridiculous and meaningless.
Lastly, I'm well aware that many others affiliated with the site are jumping all over Austin. But I tend to think that's one of the great things about our site, in that we welcome a multitude of opinions. Just because that writer said to grab him off waivers doesn't mean he's going to be correct. I happen to think that Austin won't be worth starting at any point the rest of the year, so I'm not going to burn a high waiver priority or drop a guy that I personally think has more upside -- guys like Devin Hester, Braylon Edwards (who incidentally was ranked WR73 this past week on FBGs official rankings).
I'm just using the following as an example and in no way am I saying that I'm "better" than anyone...but last year, I believe two out of 25 of our writers predicted DeAngelo Williams would finish the season as a better fantasy option than Jonathan Stewart. I was one of the two, and I had Williams higher than anyone else on staff. Would it have been better if I had followed the herd on Stewart? Hell no, because Williams led me to titles in several leagues and anyone who trusted my opinions prior to that may have done the same. Am I wrong sometimes? Sure. Everyone will be. But the goal is to be right as much as possible...not just to follow along with what everyone else thinks.
So what you see as me maybe being less intelligent, I see as having my own thoughts. Differences of opinions are a GOOD thing on fantasy sites, because it allows for you to see all angles of a situation and not just the angle that you have a predisposed bias to believe in.
shut it down
Footballguy
Solid work here.
Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll
Footballguy
Wow, that's pretty funny.Solid work here.
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll said:Wow, that's pretty funny.Solid work here.
You win some, you lose some, and then there are some that make you want to bury your head in the sand. This would fall into that third category.
