MLB FORUM

  • bhdevault

    • Lead Moderator

    • Blogger of the Month

    1:10 PM EST : Cleveland ( -154 ) at Detroit ( 142 ) —- T: 7.5
    2:05 PM EST : Toronto ( 214 ) at Boston ( -235 ) —- T: 8
    2:10 PM EST : Tampa Bay ( -158 ) at Chi Sox ( 145 ) —- T: 8.5
    6:40 PM EST : Miami ( 164 ) at Cincinnati ( -179 ) —- T: 8
    7:05 PM EST : Oakland ( -157 ) at Baltimore ( 145 ) —- T: 9
    7:05 PM EST : Washington ( 113 ) at Philadelphia ( -123 ) —- T: 7.5
    7:10 PM EST : Minnesota ( 181 ) at NY Mets ( -197 ) —- T: 6.5
    7:45 PM EST : LA Dodgers ( -131 ) at St. Louis ( 121 ) —- T: 8.5
    8:10 PM EST : NY Yankees ( 159 ) at Houston ( -173 ) —- T: 8
    8:15 PM EST : Seattle ( -105 ) at Kansas City ( -103 ) —- T: 9
    8:40 PM EST : Atlanta ( 112 ) at Colorado ( -122 ) —- T: 11
    9:40 PM EST : Texas ( 122 ) at Arizona ( -132 ) —- T: 8.5
    9:45 PM EST : San Diego ( -116 ) at SF Giants ( 107 ) —- T: 7.5
    10:07 PM EST : Milwaukee ( -126 ) at LA Angels ( 116 ) —- T: 8.5

    Admin Note: The mod team is working to keep these daily threads more on topic – MLB strategy talk for today’s games. Post referring to yesterdays games will be moved to yesterdays MLB thread. Any off topic posts or posts containing full lineups will be deleted..

  • dmsr320

    He should only be free if the scoring allows negative points…otherwise it compromises the integrity of the contest enabling people to take a zero at worst with Davis and load up other positions they otherwise wouldn’t be able to

  • dmsr320

    @feekdogg said...

    @dmsr320 said…

    No doubt. He should be free.

    He should only be free if the scoring allows negative points…otherwise it compromises the integrity of the contest enabling people to take a zero at worst with Davis and load up other positions they otherwise wouldn’t be able to

  • Pandamonious

    • Moderator

    • 2020 Blogger of the Month

    @chrislamb92 said...

    Sorry I should’ve said to be able to play a lineup of all starting players not just hitters. Playing a relief pitcher is much less viable on a multi-game slate than showdown imo.

    It just seems to me that if you can’t play the 1-5 hitters on a team that hasn’t even been hitting well against a pitcher who has looked great so far this season without being required to either A) start the cheapest pitcher available or B) play a relief pitcher or multiple non-starting hitters then something is wrong with the pricing.

    I’d say if they aren’t making it easy for you to do exactly what you want then they’re doing something right. You think a slow start and Shoemaker would stop people from stacking the best Boston bats? If Betts and JD were 4.5K they’d be like 70% owned. Come on.

  • Epignosis

    • 474

      RG Overall Ranking

    @dmsr320 said...

    He should only be free if the scoring allows negative points…otherwise it compromises the integrity of the contest enabling people to take a zero at worst with Davis and load up other positions they otherwise wouldn’t be able to

    That sounds suspiciously like FD’s NBA product…

  • Unico10

    • 740

      RG Overall Ranking

    @chrislamb92 said...

    Sorry I should’ve said to be able to play a lineup of all starting players not just hitters. Playing a relief pitcher is much less viable on a multi-game slate than showdown imo.

    It just seems to me that if you can’t play the 1-5 hitters on a team that hasn’t even been hitting well against a pitcher who has looked great so far this season without being required to either A) start the cheapest pitcher available or B) play a relief pitcher or multiple non-starting hitters then something is wrong with the pricing.

    Thank you

    Is not Coors
    Is not a fail-proof spot (if there is ever one)

  • Sleazygreazy

    • 264

      RG Overall Ranking

    @dmsr320 said...

    He should only be free if the scoring allows negative points…otherwise it compromises the integrity of the contest enabling people to take a zero at worst with Davis and load up other positions they otherwise wouldn’t be able to

    It’s not compromising the integrity, everyone can do it, EVEN YOU! It’s all relative broski

  • biga0787

    Kluber 16.6% in the 4.44 early fd. Regardless of outcome he is the right play imo

  • Unico10

    • 740

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Pandamonious said...

    I’d say if they aren’t making it easy for you to do exactly what you want then they’re doing something right. You think a slow start and Shoemaker would stop people from stacking the best Boston bats? If Betts and JD were 4.5K they’d be like 70% owned. Come on.

    I don’t think Mookie and JD price is an issue
    I think the minimum prices are an issue

    Sure there have been slates where nobody below 3k cracks the lineup in the past, but now pricing is structured in a way where the players below 3k aren’t even with the team or even likely to be called up

    One thing is to be willing to take a chance on a zero to fit certain players, shouldn’t have to be guaranteed a zero
    How many GPP have been won by the 2500 punt stumbling on a HR?

  • dmsr320

    @Epignosis said...

    That sounds suspiciously like FD’s NBA product…

    exactly…another terrible idea

  • thebaynetrain

    Tigers are pretty low owned on DK considering his recent form/wind blowing out

  • chrislamb92

    @Pandamonious said...

    I’d say if they aren’t making it easy for you to do exactly what you want then they’re doing something right. You think a slow start and Shoemaker would stop people from stacking the best Boston bats? If Betts and JD were 4.5K they’d be like 70% owned. Come on.

    I think I’ve found where the disconnect between us is. I think the issue comes from pricing up the low end guys, not that the top end players are too expensive. Betts, JD, etc are priced right where they were last year, but look at the hitters in the bottoms of lineups. The White Sox 7-9 against Morton are 4.4k, 3.9k, 3.5k. The Blue Jays 8 and 9 hitters are 4k and 3.5k. In years past those guys would be <3k.

    Edit: someone beat me to it but yeah same thing Unico said

  • Pandamonious

    • Moderator

    • 2020 Blogger of the Month

    @chrislamb92 said...

    I think I’ve found where the disconnect between us is. I think the issue comes from pricing up the low end guys, not that the top end players are too expensive. Betts, JD, etc are priced right where they were last year, but look at the hitters in the bottoms of lineups. The White Sox 7-9 against Morton are 4.4k, 3.9k, 3.5k. The Blue Jays 8 and 9 hitters are 4k and 3.5k. In years past those guys would be <3k.

    Edit: someone beat me to it but yeah same thing Unico said

    I know that. Poor example on my part. Either way my point is the same. If it was easy to fit JD and Betts their ownership would be through the roof. Whether it was, because Betts was 5.3K and Perez was 2.6K or Perez was 3.3K and Betts was 4.6K.

    My point all along has been it shouldn’t be easy to stack the top 5 of an elite offense without making sacrifices somewhere.

  • chrislamb92

    @Pandamonious said...

    I know that. Poor example on my part. Either way my point is the same. If it was easy to fit JD and Betts their ownership would be through the roof. Whether it was, because Betts was 5.3K and Perez was 2.6K or Perez was 3.3K and Betts was 4.6K.

    My point all along has been it shouldn’t be easy to stack the top 5 of an elite offense without making sacrifices somewhere.

    Right and the choice used to be you could sacrifice the other 3 hitter spots and get decent pitching or sacrifice pitching and get decent hitters in the other 3 spots. Now with no options to sacrifice the hitting (again, while playing all players starting) you are left sacrificing the pitching which imo leads to less differentiation as now instead of people being locked into 5 players they are locked into 6.

    All of this is of course specific to small slates. I like the change for large slates as there is slightly more hitting value and you can at least pick between a choice of bad pitchers to play.

  • Unico10

    • 740

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Pandamonious said...

    I know that. Poor example on my part. Either way my point is the same. If it was easy to fit JD and Betts their ownership would be through the roof. Whether it was, because Betts was 5.3K and Perez was 2.6K or Perez was 3.3K and Betts was 4.6K.

    My point all along has been it shouldn’t be easy to stack the top 5 of an elite offense without making sacrifices somewhere.

    I agree.
    Current pricing only allowed for ONE choice involving players actually guaranteed to be taking the field.
    Past pricing would present us with the choice to play Santana, or maybe Perez at 2500 or maybe punt with a #8 or #9 SS

    If they want to take away stacking, I would be more a fan of limiting the number of players per team. They did change it from 6 to 5 a couple of years ago, they could move it to 4.

  • Njsum1

    Bout 3 pages now devoted to talking about Red Sox stacks on the early. If you wanted pitching you could just stack The Rays. Think the Rays have the same implied total as Boston. Although I don’t really believe in “implied team total.” Odds are the same that Rays stack outscores Boston as vice versa.

    Edit…or apparently Cleveland

  • Pandamonious

    • Moderator

    • 2020 Blogger of the Month

    @Njsum1 said...

    Bout 3 pages now devoted to talking about Red Sox stacks on the early. If you wanted pitching you could just stack The Rays. Think the Rays have the same implied total as Boston. Although I don’t really believe in “implied total.” Odds are the same that Rays stack outscores Boston as vice versa.

    More so devoted to the pricing issues, but yeah. Tigers were dirt cheap too. Harrison and Goodrum were 3.3 and 3.6K respectively and already have 5 points each. Of course they may not get anymore, but at least they’re on the board.

  • Unico10

    • 740

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Njsum1 said...

    Bout 3 pages now devoted to talking about Red Sox stacks on the early. If you wanted pitching you could just stack The Rays. Think the Rays have the same implied total as Boston. Although I don’t really believe in “implied team total.” Odds are the same that Rays stack outscores Boston as vice versa.

    I did stack the Rays and the Indians

  • Lathum

    Baseball is maddening. 4 man Indians stack on FanDuel. 2-5 hitters. Leadiff guy hits a homer. Next 4, my stack, all outs. Next guy a double. Next guy a homer. Right church wrong pew. So frustrating

  • Njsum1

    @Pandamonious said...

    More so devoted to the pricing issues, but yeah. Tigers were dirt cheap too. Harrison and Goodrum were 3.3 and 3.6K respectively and already have 5 points each. Of course they may not get anymore, but at least they’re on the board.

    Yep…I played Kluber, Morton, 3 Rays, 3 Indians, Harrison and Galvis. I was going to do a five man ray stack which would have likely done me better than starting 3 Indians, Since I don’t have Martin or miller…have Naquin though.

    Now watch the Sox put up 15 runs…haha #beisbol

  • Unico10

    • 740

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Pandamonious said...

    More so devoted to the pricing issues, but yeah. Tigers were dirt cheap too. Harrison and Goodrum were 3.3 and 3.6K respectively and already have 5 points each. Of course they may not get anymore, but at least they’re on the board.

    It’s early in the season and DK has changed their algo.

    That involves forcing different strategies and different mindsets about the slate. I think is a discussion worth having.
    Is not so much about who likes it or who dislikes it… is more about not denying it. It’s there, is happening. How to approach it.
    They basically make you overpay for bad or very thin plays, while in the last those play were there for you if you wanted them.

    I think it affects cash games and GPPs in very different ways.

  • Njsum1

    @Pandamonious said...

    More so devoted to the pricing issues, but yeah. Tigers were dirt cheap too. Harrison and Goodrum were 3.3 and 3.6K respectively and already have 5 points each. Of course they may not get anymore, but at least they’re on the board.

    I love DK pricing this year. People are complaining, yet they’ve got it spot on..IMO.

    Nothing wrong with starting a RP or taking a 0 at catcher for 2500. My best lineup this year scored like a 180…had 2 0’s in it.

  • Epignosis

    • 474

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Njsum1 said...

    Now watch the Sox put up 15 runs…haha #beisbol

  • Njsum1

    @Unico10 said...

    I did stack the Rays and the Indians

    Yeah I thought the pitching I wanted was fairly priced that I could get some good bats to go along with it without sacrificing much hitting. Still if redsox hang 10 runs, it will all be for not.

  • Njsum1

    @Epignosis said...

  • rog11sm

    Harrison with a double and now 2 for 2

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).