What's new
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!

WIS XVII - The Cartereaganbush League: Scoobus beats Sammy in the Wis Series (1 Viewer)

Are we at the turn / waiting on a roll? (I think so but not sure, on conference calls having some :coffee: )

 
Greco said:
Worst case scenario.
Click to expand...
For me, it seems the 2nd season is often, maybe most often, the worst option. The third seems to be the one with the least PAs/IPs, but they are good or great.  The first is usually the best overall, unless the third is a great reliever vs. just an ok starter.  2 seems to be not great numbers and sometimes crappy ones, but more PAs/IPs.

It's been some 2's that have killed me the most.

 
Kraft... said:
At this stage the 3's(or whatever worst season # is) will hurt a lot more. Likely to the point of unusability. 
Click to expand...
Definitely at the point where for any decent upside you need to take that requisite risk. Soon, and maybe at some positions now, if you want a legit difference maker, you are probably looking at 33% odds and MAYBE a usable but sub par (or worse) second season.

 
@Kraft... On the flip side, if you get a 2, or certainly a 3, and that happens to be your best season, it's a nice little advantage over most teams at this point.  Back when I took a chance and lost on Greenwell, most all other teams probably got a really good player. Maybe I took that chance too soon.  Now, it can cut both ways, but if you do strike gold with a #3 roll it's that much more beneficial.

Then again, it's easy to chase greatness and end up with dreck.

 
Doug B said:
18.03: Jim Bibby, SP (77, 81, 79)

@the moops
 
Click to expand...
Fuh. I just really like this guy, but had to take a chance at a great closer season that had something to give in case of a poor role. He's been on my list for rounds now.  2 really nice seasons as a 3/4 starter (5 man rotation, 3/5 if you are going four man). That third is kinda ugly, but will give you a punchers' chance in most games. And gives you a #### ton of innings.

 
Koya said:
Fuh. I just really like this guy, but had to take a chance at a great closer season that had something to give in case of a poor role. He's been on my list for rounds now.  2 really nice seasons as a 3/4 starter (5 man rotation, 3/5 if you are going four man). That third is kinda ugly, but will give you a punchers' chance in most games. And gives you a #### ton of innings.
Click to expand...
Notice that I am leaving out his highest $ season, his 1980 season when he was 3rd in the Cy Young balloting. Bibby's 1980 and 1979 seasons should be close in WIS quality but better per-9 rates across the board made the 1979 more appealing.

 
Doug B said:
Notice that I am leaving out his highest $ season, his 1980 season when he was 3rd in the Cy Young balloting. Bibby's 1980 and 1979 seasons should be close in WIS quality but better per-9 rates across the board made the 1979 more appealing.
Click to expand...
Ahh, yeah, I can see how that would likely provide a better third season for you in terms of performance.  :thumbup:

 
Speaking of pitchers: How many famous well-renowned pitchers have you all looked at in this thing, and wondered "Man, their stats kinda suck. How were they stars in MLB with stats like these?"

I mean, not talking about HOF-level guys. But guys that we well remember from our youths as being some team's ace for several years, or some team's long-reliable set-up man, or roles like that. Heck, there have been some pitchers who have won significant hardware during seasons in which they gave up the league-average batting average to opponents. Or sometimes even a little worse.

Then there are the other memorable guys, not stars, not aces, but guys who played for someone for a long time and nailed down the SP3 or SP4 role for some franchise. They ate innings reliably for a number of years, all the while getting tagged at a .270-.280 clip by opponents.

 
Doug B said:
Speaking of pitchers: How many famous well-renowned pitchers have you all looked at in this thing, and wondered "Man, their stats kinda suck. How were they stars in MLB with stats like these?"

I mean, not talking about HOF-level guys. But guys that we well remember from our youths as being some team's ace for several years, or some team's long-reliable set-up man, or roles like that. Heck, there have been some pitchers who have won significant hardware during seasons in which they gave up the league-average batting average to opponents. Or sometimes even a little worse.

Then there are the other memorable guys, not stars, not aces, but guys who played for someone for a long time and nailed down the SP3 or SP4 role for some franchise. They ate innings reliably for a number of years, all the while getting tagged at a .270-.280 clip by opponents.
Click to expand...
Back in the 80's if you won 15 games you were a good pitcher. 17-18 you were really good.  You win 20? Cy Young level.

It's amazing how much more refined the LAY person has become in evaluating talent and stats as compared to "experts" and even scouts and journalists that spent their life covering baseball, back then.

 
Doug B said:
Speaking of pitchers: How many famous well-renowned pitchers have you all looked at in this thing, and wondered "Man, their stats kinda suck. How were they stars in MLB with stats like these?"

I mean, not talking about HOF-level guys. But guys that we well remember from our youths as being some team's ace for several years, or some team's long-reliable set-up man, or roles like that. Heck, there have been some pitchers who have won significant hardware during seasons in which they gave up the league-average batting average to opponents. Or sometimes even a little worse.

Then there are the other memorable guys, not stars, not aces, but guys who played for someone for a long time and nailed down the SP3 or SP4 role for some franchise. They ate innings reliably for a number of years, all the while getting tagged at a .270-.280 clip by opponents.
Click to expand...
Different pitching staff philosophies than today.  You couldn't be a max effort guy throwing 96 if Earl Weaver or Billy Martin expected 280 IP from you.  Pitching to contact produced much higher OAVs than we're used to today but SP went deeper into games.

If you look at pitching staffs of the era in B-R, there are a lot of teams that only used 13-15 pitchers all season including September callups.  Modern teams will cycle twice that number through their staffs now.

 
Eephus said:
Different pitching staff philosophies than today.  You couldn't be a max effort guy throwing 96 if Earl Weaver or Billy Martin expected 280 IP from you.  Pitching to contact produced much higher OAVs than we're used to today but SP went deeper into games.

If you look at pitching staffs of the era in B-R, there are a lot of teams that only used 13-15 pitchers all season including September callups.  Modern teams will cycle twice that number through their staffs now.
Click to expand...
I wonder if we'll ever see a shift back to the pitch-to-contact philosophy. Seems like rule changes (like the new one this year) could render that more useful.

 
Eephus said:
Different pitching staff philosophies than today.  You couldn't be a max effort guy throwing 96 if Earl Weaver or Billy Martin expected 280 IP from you.  Pitching to contact produced much higher OAVs than we're used to today but SP went deeper into games.

If you look at pitching staffs of the era in B-R, there are a lot of teams that only used 13-15 pitchers all season including September callups.  Modern teams will cycle twice that number through their staffs now.
Click to expand...
This kind of thinking makes me wonder: If you time-travelled Cy Young or Walter Johnson ahead to the late 2010s major leagues and inserted them into a rotation, AND they tried to pitch exactly like they did in their primes ... would they just suck out loud from 'always pitching tired' compared to modern arms? Like they'd be OK for the first five or six innings ... but as they kept trying to complete 9-inning games and keep insisting on toeing the rubber every fourth game, they would just fall apart in the modern game?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tonycarpenter
12 Team 15 Keeper Who do you keep
Replies
16
Views
1K
Tonycarpenter
Tonycarpenter
Tonycarpenter
Dynasty/Keeper Help 3.0
Replies
7
Views
1K
Eephus
Eephus
Tonycarpenter
Questions about players Position Eligibility 2025 and beyond specific to my roster
Replies
2
Views
1K
FDASv2.0
FDASv2.0

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top