metsmarathon

but anyone who is at the bottom of the league isn't going to become suddenly interested because they cannot make it into the 6-team playoffs. i finished 3rd last year, and up until the last week, i still had a shot at winning, if a few things broke right. when one team runs away with it, fine, there might not be much competition. but that's not always the case. as far as keepers... i paid no attention to how many stolen bases anyone is projected to get. none. CS either. not a factor. what's billy hamilton getting valued at right now? across all of ottoneu, billy hamilton is an $11 player. in our format, he's worthless. but in the playoffs? he's tremendously valuable. on my roster, i gave no concern to saves or holds. wasn't a factor. i just cut two players who reliably should get 20 holds in will harris and jake mcgee. maybe i keep them with points. i just don't know. i didn't look into it. maybe chad green and nate jones aren't as valuable to me now. who knows! it's a minute difference? it's how we determine who won the damn league!

there was no option for "no playoffs". the three outsiders that i work with all do not favor the playoffs (specifically the format change for the playoffs). this includes all past champions of the league. my prospective new guy is also not in favor of the playoff format change, for the record. if playoffs could be done with the 4x4 roto scoring, then i think it would be a whole lot different. in this thread, there are 4 votes for a playoff format. one of those is mine, as if i'm forced to participate in playoffs, then i'd like 6 teams. assuming the other three votes are from participants who are actually interested in having playoffs, then you have at most three votes in favor of playoffs, and five votes against. plus two additional outside players who do not have access to this forum, whose voices have yet to be heard. i think your assessment of "overwhelming support" is far overblown. i'll put it this way. switching formats from 4x4 roto to points h2h for the playoffs is going to cause up to 4 teams to leave the league. do we really have anyone jumping up and down that they're not going to want to play if we do not switch over to playoffs? the best course of action is to, at a minimum put off any format change, including playoffs, until next offseason, when it can be factored into our arbitration and keeper rationale. it also gives ottoneu a chance to figure out how to run 4x4 h2h, either for a full season or just in the playoffs. switching scoring formats for the playoffs is preposterous, and will destroy the league. and by "destroy the league" i mean, cause a sizaeable portion of it to leave.

just so you know, the non-forum members who work with me are not at all happy with the playoff format change. i don't disagree with them. i like the appeal of playoffs, but not with the format change. that's just absurd. seriously, i think you're in danger of ruining my favorite fantasy league.

Ceetar wrote: We may need another player, anyone in? there's a guy i work with who would very likely be interested. what do i need to tell him?

no but we also don't switch from counting runs to determine a winner to counting total bases.

fluky is one thing. switching formats is another. though i suppose the analogy would be akin to doing shootouts in hockey at the end of overtime.

hmm... seems kinda half-baked on that end, no? i mean, why not run roto stats for the week? (i know, you're not the one coding it) i like the appeal of playoffs, but i wonder if it's just too much not ready for prime time that it'll end up further fracturing our delicate league. maybe i just need to run some numbers and see how much it actually affects my valuations of players. if good players stay good irrespective of the format, and bad players stay bad, then it's no net difference. if there's some major differences, then it will require further thought. i do find it odd that pitcher stats do not include blown saves, for one...

but in the playoffs, the scoring format switches over to h2h points, and not roto format, correct?

i'm currently undecided as to how i feel about he switch to h2h. i think that the biggest change is going to be the sudden valuation of running stats and relief stats; more importantly, the devaluation of the rate stats. i mean, i can make the adjustment, sure, but i liked that key differentiation between this league and any others readily available. i don't know that h2h really, truly makes the league more competitive, at least not moreso than simply adding playoffs does. the sucky teams are still going to suck, and they'll dig themselves a hole either way. if you don't have a good roster, you're not going to win head to head matchups. if there's enough momentum to move towards h2h, i'll play either way. but i much prefer the current 4x4 roto.

wait... are the playoffs also something that happens if we're still 4x4 roto?

i've got abad feeling about this...

hey all, do remember to be mindful of re-upping your franchises! that deadline always seems to sneak up on people come february 14th!

deathship might want to drop some players before tonight's keeper deadline. maybe...

also worth considering.... i've heard cliff floyd talk about that at bat a few times on the sirius mlb channel. he tells that the mets batters had NO IDEA wainwright had that nasty curve. which seems somewhat inconceivable... but to listen to him tell it, it sounds credible.

Edgy MD wrote: [Marlins General Manager] Hill made the trade as he began a trip to run seven marathons on seven continents in seven days. Not that I'm not impressed, but ... seriously? Showoff

this whole 10-person limit on the ballot irks me to no end. in 1939, the MLB had 16 teams. we now have 30 teams. would it not make any sense to scale the number of ballot-spaces with the approximate size of the player pool, if not get rid of the limit outright? and maybe then issue some guidance to the electorate that they should vote for anyone they think merits enshrinement, not simply those who they feel should be enshrined in that given year. becasue that's fucking ridiculous.

is it terrible unsurprising that a professional athlete who recovered from several surgeries in his career might've ended up with a bit of a self-medication problem...?

I have a rather short list, I think. in no particular order: 1. shea 2. citi field 3. YS3 4. RFK 5. metrodome 6. chase field 7. dolphin stadium 8? ys2 (er, at least.. I think I went to a game there freshman year.... some impression it made, eh?)

if all the voters would vote for who they actually thought merited enshrinement, just for like one or two years, the problem would go away all by itself, and we'd go right on with our small hall inductee classes after going through the correction.

yeah, i'm willing to back off on the above. a bit. i think the difference in their WAR is most likely due to playing time. and if i scale wagner's career WAR to hoffmans same IP, then i get about 29 WAR for wagner. meaning he was more dominant for the amount that he played than was hoffman. wagner has the third lowest ERA+ of any reliever ever, behind only mariano and kimbrel, and better than current notables kenley jansen and aroldis chapman. he's sixth in career saves, though its likely the three players immediately ahead of him never sniff the hall. lee smith, k-rod, and john franco. i guess if i was compiling a list of the best relievers ever, wagner would be near the top. might probably be ahead of hoffman (who has a higher WPA, btw). i just don't know where the cut line is on my list for then making the hall of fame.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And if you're voting for closers... well... these guys don't seem to register that in every other way but counting stats, Wagner was a significantly more dominant closer than Trevor Hoffman. it's not the be-all, end-all, but if you look at fangraphs, and run tehir war graphs tool, where it stacks their seasons from most to least fWAR, you'll find that billy wagner's curve is below trevor hoffman's for all but one data point. meaning wagner's best season was better than hoffman's best season. but hoffman's second-best season was better than wagners second best, and hoffmans third best was better than wagners third best. so on so forth. the difference is within the margin of error for war, to be sure, but it's just not true to say that wagner was more dominant than hoffman. except if you're measuring fastball velocity, i guess. OE: hmm... wagner does have a far better ERA, ERA+. unsure how the WAR calculation is coming in so evenly. maybe it's the higher walk rate...?

it's not like she floated her way from one ship to another. she moved maybe 10 feet? (i do need to rewatch it. maybe it was 20. i'm not sure i'd call that a lengthy excursion either way) mere mortal humans can survive 15 seconds in the vacuum of space before losing consciousness, and won't be dead if they're repressurized within about 90 seconds. i don't think that more than 15 seconds elapsed i the movie, and if they did, i guess maybe the force gave her an extra second or two of alertness. hardly the most magical thing it's done! so if the not dying for 15 seconds isn't too far fetched, and using the force to gently tug on something is well within the bounds of the expected, then what's really so hard about not dying while trying to pull a doornob? the effect could have been better. sure. give them more time in post. but the act itself, i've no issue with. also, it's been established that the force can be used to extend life. otherwise vader would be really quite dead, and luke & leia would've grown up with a mom.

Edgy MD wrote: And of course, because it's Disney, she has to fly exactly like Mary Poppins, even if she's a popsicle. I.... I mean shit, if you think Disney orchestrated that scene to look like Mary poppins, then, well, damn. I ain’t got nothin.

it's mentioned in at least one of the books in the force awakens prequel set. i do concede that, in movie, it could've been talked about just a smidge. a side discussion between her and holdo, afterwards: "you can do that?" "apparently... luke tried to teach me, but i thought i'd never picked up on it" "you never cease to amaze me" could have been helpful.

she also felt han's death. in the string of (canon) novels leading up to the latest two installments of the movie enterprise, it's clear that leia has a connection to the force. she'd never been seen to manipulate objects explicitly, of course, just that she felt the ebb and flow of the force, instinctively, and used it to guide her. that said, does it not seem a little plausible that in the 30 years since return of the jedi that luke might've taught her even a little bit about how to use the force, and she'd just never taken up the opportunity to go flaunting various jedi tricks? indeed it's mentioned in one or more of the lead-in books that leia had been getting some training from luke. actually, if you think about it, prior to her spacewalk, leia'd used about as much of the force as luke did before he found himself hanging upside down in a wampa cave on hoth. and what did he do then? reached out with the force and gave a pull. also, in the microgravity of space, it doesn't take a whole lot of force to move an object, and the vacuum of space isn't an instantaneous death. it was hardly a herculean feat to tug on a distant doorknob. i also have to think that carrie fisher's untimely passing might've prevented some tidying up of that scene, perhaps with a better blue screen effect. yoda lifted an x-wing out of a swamp, and bounced around like a pinball prior to an unfortunate run-in with force lightning. obi wan and anakin leapt and tumbled around like spiderman. and leia can't give a tug on a lifeline? some punk stablesweep kid can make his broom dance, but leia can't induce a little f=ma? as far as leia being the sacrifice instead of holdo, well, sure, i guess that might make sense, if the plan wasn't for leia to be the big key central character of IX, as had been reported. i mean, yeah, in hindsight, her passing irl would have then made for a lot of sense having her be the one to make the ultimate sacrifice leaving, i guess, luke to carry on the skywalker name. but that wasn't the plan. agreed about the non-humanoids. though c3p0 has really never done anything but bitch and whine, and pulling deus ex machina out of your plothole has always been r2's bag. chewie is massively underserved, like, seriously, thoughout the whole saga. especially considering he was supposedly some big time wookie general (i think), and friend of yoda from back in the prequel days.