Ceetar

I did..okay. really, daily fantasy only takes about as much as regular fantasy does. You have to log in and check your lineups and starters anyway, and in 'real' fantasy you make trades and changes which takes more time. Daily fantasy is just 'pick which 10 guys you think will have good days'

d'Kong76 wrote: I don't think any of the sports should be in bed with any of these fantasy things.... something's gonna happen and it's gonna be a big mess one of these days... like what? it's basically a slot machine. Even if Jimmy Rollins had the opposing pitcher in his lineup, it's not like him striking out against him 3 times is going to move the needle much, and certainly not with any certainty.

Among the other political issues we're NOT having open and honest debates about, this nation's long and mostly hypocritical stance* towards gambling is yet another one.' This fantasy stuff slides by because it's been tabbed as a game of skill rather than chance so it's technically not gambling (yet poker receives no such waiver) which not only gives it the stamp of approval but does so while keeping many possible sources of competition strictly NOT legal. But it certainly does resemble gambling in that most of the winning is done by a small handful of essentially professional players who are at liberty to play and bankroll multiple 'games' per day with the idea that one or more will hit. Meanwhile the minnows dipping their toes into the water, or the ones who are conned by the commercials that make it seem like every entrant is a winner, are merely funneling their dough to the sharks which makes both the pros and the ones running the games very happy. * many state & local governments were and are quite anti-gambling except when it comes to the forms over which they long held monopolistic control: lotteries, racetracks, etc. not just the nation, but sports leagues. Anyway, I'm definitely in the pro-gambling boat, but this should be treated as such. While what sports players do is skill based, what happens on any one day is pretty damn close to a coin flip. On equal footing, a random selection will win roughly as much as someone that watches the sport religiously.(which is not true in poker, which is just inane) Not much different than the 'beat the streak' contests MLB runs to pick a different hitter each day to get a hit, 56 days in a row. And to really double down, sports leagues and politicians (thanks Christie) keep shooting down sports gambling. At least poker is legal in NJ..

Not saying this is how it's gonna go or that we should even care, but if baseball is going to move to a more national game than a regional one, fantasy sports and gambling are probably how it's going to get there.

fantasy football/baseball are pretty big, yes. and presumably with the younger crowd too.

Ceetar wrote: 90-72. 1st place. I'd put in the sick day for 10/29 now if I were you. See you in downtown Manhattan. Hmm, I must have done the math wrong. It feels unlikely the Mets parade will be after only 2 WS games.

Centerfield wrote: Oh please let them hire Willie Randolph. Oh please oh please oh please. prefer them hire Backman personally.

LA Times guy reporting 9:45 start.

let's go already.

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: God, I can only imagine how many pharmaceuticals they're going to shoot into him in the hopes that he can cowboy the team into the bracket. His statement contained a note about 'looking forward to helping my teammates next year'. A minimum 30-day program apparently. Gotta figure that something big must have happened recently to trigger the thinking that this needed to be taken care of NOW!!!! think he's talking about Tanaka? In which case, Toradol for sure.

Edgy MD wrote: I had assumed they were going with Pineda. Doesn't Tanaka have some health concerns? Tanaka's got a torn elbow ligament and recently a hamstring strain. he missed a start but took the mound 9/30 for 5IP/4runs on 5 hits, 1 walk. he's the only pitcher that's been anything resembling 'good' all season though.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Who is the other person who didn't vote for Cuddyer? And can the other 26 explain the postseason value of a guy who gets out on one pitch practically every time he comes to bat? Are we going to save him to pinch hit when there's a runner on third and fewer than 2 outs? .302/.352/.458 in the second half. .277/.344/.461 for his career. He's a better hitter than half the guys on the team.

I haven't shaved in 9 days anyway, but not sure I want to go another month.

My predictions.

are they set to those times? It seems like in the past there have been complaints about them prioritizing primetime ratings over things like pacific time. So like, Monday the 12th (Columbus day, if it matters) could be a 9:37 (or maybe 8:37?) NY start time to maximize east coast prime time? Do we know if Fox gets to pick first over TBS or if it's all decided by MLB? Also, do we have any idea of the booths? I assume Ron is involved with TBS. is Kevin with Fox?

I mean, it all so heavily depends on what happens. Did they use Colon and/or Niese in game 3? is Matz available? are they down or up 2-1? How'd deGrom look in game 1?

dgwphotography wrote: I voted for the Royals, because I think it would be cool to have the two teams in the World Series playing against each other on the following Opening Day. good enough for me.

This stemmed from him saying Noah Syndergaard wasn't a power pitcher, which is just a ridiculous thing for anyone that's watched him even once or really anyone that knows anything about baseball and read a stat page. Really there is roughly zero reason to listen to WFAN or ESPN. This is the same tactic the First Take idiots take. Double down on stupidity and get aggressive with it and people will hate-listen/watch. Good for attention.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: This must be a big moment for the diehard Yankee fans who haven't seen their team in the playoffs since all the way back in 2012. If it is, you'd think they'd bother to sell out the playoff games that have been on sale for weeks.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I really am not a big soup fan. neither is my daughter. Refused Lentil soup two days in a row. smart girl. NL record 33 consecutive road games with at least 3 runs comes to an end.

[youtube:1lzh205y]cp0XOK4tnBY[/youtube:1lzh205y]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It sounds like you're assuming that the Wild Card team will advance. If the Cardinals win the NLDS then the Mets would only have games 3, 4, and 5 of the NLCS at home. I am assuming that yes. Screw the Cardinals. Right now the Mets are still only guaranteed one home playoff game. Though probably 2. with the LCS you'd get at least 2, probably 3, but you're guaranteed none (you can actually purchase those tickets, but the supply is super low cause they're not on sale yet, these are just season ticket/plan people) They go on sale before the end of the first series though, and people are going to be less likely to buy for a series that might now happen. The draw of 'this is going to be game 6, at home, against the Cubs with a chance to clinch' is a much bigger thing.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I just checked StubHub for "Home Game 2" at Citi Field. Standing Room Only tickets are selling in the $130 range. Promenade outfield seats start around $150 each. Field level box seats are around $400 each. I'm a little bit tempted on those $150 seats, but only if it's played on Saturday. I doubt that I'll pull the trigger and buy tickets, though. I assume that the NLCS, if the Mets should advance, would only be more expensive, right? technically. Though there would probably be 4 games versus maybe only 2-3, so spreads it out more. The base ticket will be a little higher, but those are already at least 3x marked up so you might not actually get that much higher for NLCS (at least in advance, coming home for game 6 and 7 is murkier)

Well, adding the third division helps the dominant teams. You only need to be better than 4 teams to consistently make the playoffs and as long as you've got at least a few good players you've got a chance. Hell, the Mets could be headed for a situation like that, depending on how the Nats go this offseason. Of course, the greatest argument for baseball parity is that the game has a lot of luck in it to begin with, and pitchers especially ebb and flow and break all the time. Also the recent change hasn't really made it any harder for a dominant team to dominate. I actually kind of like it the way it is now. I favor expansion too, but I don't think I'd want to see 4 divisions of 4. Not sure I'd like 2 division of 8 either.

Yankees magic number is 4, but there are only 4 games left. (1 Sox, 3 Orioles) They're 3 up on the Angels, 4 on the Twins. It's murky. Angels play 4 against the Rangers who are in first by 3. The Astros are only .5 up for that second wild card. They have 3 left against old-foe Diamondbacks. The Angels against the Rangers probably means that the Yankees only need to win a couple to clinch, but lots of moving parts.