MLB FORUM

Comments

  • bookitboi

    Given Blake Snell was pretty chalky today – it’s hard to believe and disappointing he didn’t get a mention anywhere on DK incentives

  • sochoice

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2017 FanDuel WFFC Champion

    The real question is did you do your own research and identify him as a potential play today? If you totally rely on what others’ opinions are, you are probably doing it wrong.

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @bookitboi said...

    Given Blake Snell was pretty chalky today – it’s hard to believe and disappointing he didn’t get a mention anywhere on DK incentives

    Not sure of your definition of chalky , but Snell was only 10% owned in the $4 DK GPP and isnt in the current top lineups

  • bigez952

    He was 12% in my GPP so I wouldn’t really consider that to be Chalky. I rolled him out with Verlander today and that has turned out to be nice combo. Snell has good stuff and I have used him a lot in the past and he hasn’t worked out for me so it was nice to finally see him do well.

  • superstars92

    • 120

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #80

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Snell was a terrible pick today. I play single entry in the 555 dollar tourney on DK, and when I saw he was like 20% owned or so, I was so happy. I didn’t know so many people out there were that -EV. Rotogrinders didn’t do anything wrong when they didn’t mention Snell because he wasn’t a good pick.

  • squirrelpatrol

    • 28

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #26

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2019 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • x5

      2018 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    I actually mentioned Snell as an “overlooked difference maker” in my FanDuel pitching primer, based on Snell pitching better at home during his career, and the low projected run total for Seattle.

  • Njsum1

    @superstars92 said...

    Snell was a terrible pick today. I play single entry in the 555 dollar tourney on DK, and when I saw he was like 20% owned or so, I was so happy. I didn’t know so many people out there were that -EV. Rotogrinders didn’t do anything wrong when they didn’t mention Snell because he wasn’t a good pick.

    I completely disagree. He was a fine cap saver play today for 5900 on DK. He was projected as a high ppd play by a handful of sites, he was a -170 favorite at home in a pitchers park, and he was facing a watered down Mariners lineup. He definitely wasn’t a lock, yet he certainly wasn’t a terrible play either.

  • Jsmooth432

    I chose him today thanks to the MLB Grind Down….

  • superstars92

    • 120

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #80

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @Njsum1 said...

    I completely disagree. He was a fine cap saver play today for 5900 on DK. He was projected as a high ppd play by a handful of sites, he was a -170 favorite at home in a pitchers park, and he was facing a watered down Mariners lineup. He definitely wasn’t a lock, yet he certainly wasn’t a terrible play either.

    Yea so I don’t disagree with you that the only reason he can be considered a good pick is because of his low 5.9k price on DK. However, just from a raw points perspective (which is what you should care about more in MLB, value doesn’t mean anything because it’s so much variance, unlike in the NBA), he was definitely not a good pick imo. I don’t see him (as in less than 1% chance) being in a top 1% GPP lineup.

    Basically, if you chose Snell, you would have most likely paired him with DeGrom/Salazar, both of whom sucked. You probably saved money to choose the Rangers/Rockies, both of whom sucked.

    The only way Snell finds your way into a very top GPP lineup is if you paired him with like Verlander and chose Aguilar + MIN stack + like one other good player like Lindor or Cespedes, and that’s coming from a near perfect game from Snell, which was super unlikely to happen in the first place. However, that is super unlikely because Snell was so cheap, you probably would have tried to fill up salary from other positions that didn’t include these players.

  • Njsum1

    @superstars92 said...

    Yea so I don’t disagree with you that the only reason he can be considered a good pick is because of his low 5.9k price on DK. However, just from a raw points perspective (which is what you should care about more in MLB, value doesn’t mean anything because it’s so much variance, unlike in the NBA), he was definitely not a good pick imo. I don’t see him (as in less than 1% chance) being in a top 1% GPP lineup.

    Basically, if you chose Snell, you would have most likely paired him with DeGrom/Salazar, both of whom sucked. You probably saved money to choose the Rangers/Rockies, both of whom sucked.

    The only way Snell finds your way into a very top GPP lineup is if you paired him with like Verlander and chose Aguilar + MIN stack + like one other good player like Lindor or Cespedes, and that’s coming from a near perfect game from Snell, which was super unlikely to happen in the first place. However, that is super unlikely because Snell was so cheap, you probably would have tried to fill up salary from other positions that didn’t include these players.

    You can’t Monday morning quarterback and say Snell couldn’t have found his way into a winning because A,B, and C didn’t happen. Thing is you don’t know what will happen for sure until the games play out. Degrom could have put up 40 and Trout could have done the same. Instead they busted. A high PPD play for a cheap price can always put you on the top, whether it does or not depends on how the games play out. Yet you can’t go back after knowing the outcome and say it was a bad play cause he didn’t fit the post slate optimal lineup construction, it doesn’t work that way. He very easily could have found his way into a winning lineup had the slate played out just a little differently.

    So even though you took down the $555 today, which is well above my pay grade, and Congrats on a job well done, still doesn’t mean your argument is valid.

  • superstars92

    • 120

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #80

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @Njsum1 said...

    You can’t Monday morning quarterback and say Snell couldn’t have found his way into a winning because A,B, and C didn’t happen. Thing is you don’t know what will happen for sure until the games play out. Degrom could have put up 40 and Trout could have done the same. Instead they busted. A high PPD play for a cheap price can always put you on the top, whether it does or not depends on how the games play out. Yet you can’t go back after knowing the outcome and say it was a bad play cause he didn’t fit the post slate optimal lineup construction, it doesn’t work that way. He very easily could have found his way into a winning lineup had the slate played out just a little differently.

    So first of all, I’m just here for discussion. I don’t mean for anything I said to be offensive or angry because I’m not trying to be so in case you or anyone else was interpreting my posts as such, I don’t mean that. Just trying to be helpful. I was merely answering the OP’s question about why RG didn’t post about Snell. I think it was fine for them to not talk about him because I don’t think he was that good of a pick. You obviously disagree, and I respect that, and you would have been right today, and I would have been wrong.

    With that said, it’s actually quite ironic what you are saying about me being a Monday Morning QB. Remember the OP ONLY posted this post because Blake Snell went off. If Snell didn’t go off, there’s no way he posts this (and Snell usually does not go off like this – he hasn’t in a year). Also, remember I am arguing Snell was not that good of a play DESPITE the fact he went off (like 2nd highest raw points behind Verlander), so clearly I am not playing Monday Morning QB. When is the last time you’ve seen someone argue a player wasn’t a good play despite the fact he went off? If anything, some people might think I am stupid for saying Snell was a bad play when in fact he was the 2nd best pitcher the entire slate. I am dong that, so I can assure you I am not being results oriented or playing Monday Morning QB. You are saying Snell didn’t find its way into the winning lineup because A, B, and C didn’t happen. Well, what about Snell going off not happening in the first place (same logic)?

    With that said, in purely respect to Snell (ignoring the other things about Rangers/Rockies), my argument has been and always will be that it is super difficult to win a GPP with a sub 7k pitcher. I believe the chances of that happening are super small, smaller than the chances you win if you don’t choose a sub 7k pitcher, even though about 50% of pitchers are sub 7k and 50% are 7k+. This is despite the fact you have more money by choosing a sub 7k pitcher to choose someone like Trout or the higher bats. That’s all I am trying to say…it has nothing to do with the actual results today.

  • MHDU2424

    • 449

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #71

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Cheap favored pitchers in a lower Over/Under game shouldn’t be some huge surprise

    He was a decent play because he was so cheap combined with the factors above and it worked out this time

  • Njsum1

    @superstars92 said...

    . I think it was fine for them to not talk about him because I don’t think he was that good of a pick. You obviously disagree, and I respect that, and you would have been right today, and I would have been wrong.

    You’re misinterpreting my point, as I don’t care if RG wrote about Snell as I make my lineups independent of other people’s opinion. I was solely arguing your point that Snell was a bad play. Also I don’t care about results, I had 15 percent Snell, whether he was a champ or a chump it didn’t matter. When I call someone a good or bad play I do so irregardless of the outcome, I’m solely talking about whether they were a good play going into the matchup. I called you a Monday morning QB because you said even though Snell did well he couldn’t have won you a GPP today. Yet you said that after knowing the outcome of the slate and the optimal construction. Fact is if Degrom struck Stanton out for a second time instead of giving up a 3 run shot, he could have gave you almost 30 and then Snell could have most certainly been in Today’s optimal lineups.

    Also, I realize you’re just trying to help, which is why I congratulated you on your win today. Yet as I said in my previous post, it still doesn’t mean you’re right about this one, haha.

  • blo227

    I had snell in my lineups. more than the field and managed to cash. if you played him it was likely you needed cap space for tex and coors bats. every dog has his day I guess

  • NoLimits0

    As several people above me have said, you only played Snell to fit Coors and Rangers and Trout. Snell alone was not a good choice. If 10-20% of people chose Snell, like almost all 10-20% except for NJsum did it bdcause they wanted to stack some high bats, not they thought Snell was good.

  • Derfturf

    What sold me was that he was favored at home with an O/U of 9. Figured he needed to just hit 15 points. Bats failed me tonight though.

  • monds6

    • 223

      RG Overall Ranking

    • x2

      2015 DraftKings FCFWC Finalist

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSFC Finalist

    Variance in baseball. Bottom line. Superstar hitters go 0-4 – Mike Trout (it may have been 0-5) and pitchers who have been on a tear have bad outings – Danny Salazar. It was a 5900 GPP high risk high reward play and it paid off. That is the beauty of baseball. You have to have some stones once in a while to play a risky pitcher. There was risk, the mariners had put up 7 runs three straight games. However, the talent, the pedigree, and the historical K rate are there for Snell. As rosters expand, there will be more cheap pitchers that are risky but may payoff.

  • superstars92

    • 120

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #80

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @Njsum1 said...

    Yet as I said in my previous post, it still doesn’t mean you’re right about this one, haha.

    Well to be fair, I mean it’s hard to say I’m right and you’re wrong or I’m wrong and you’re right. I guess you are more likely to be right given Snell did have a very good game, but wrong/right is very subjective when it’s a sample size of 1.

  • Yacht67

    Snell kinda sucks this year.

  • btwice80

    • 670

      RG Overall Ranking

    @superstars92 said...

    Basically, if you chose Snell, you would have most likely paired him with DeGrom/Salazar, both of whom sucked. You probably saved money to choose the Rangers/Rockies, both of whom sucked.

    Quite few high volume regs paired Snell with Peacock in cash games. There were a lot of appealing expensive bats (they didn’t all bust), and the pitching was kinda gross all-around, considering prices. But yeah, you’re probably right and they were wrong. Terrible play.

    Also disagree with you about pt./$ being unimportant in MLB, specific to DK pitching. FD is more about raw points though.

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

Sites mentioned in this thread

Use our links to sign up and deposit on sites listed in this thread to get these bonuses:

Subforum Index

New RotoGrinders Sports Betting Section!

Are you a DFS player who wants to get into sports betting?

If you have access to New Jersey sports betting, then use our DraftKings Sportsbook promo code and our FanDuel Sportsbook promo code to get the best bonuses in the NJ industry.

Those who can take advantage of PA online sports betting should use our SugarHouse PA promo code to get the best sports betting bonus in Pennsylvania.

If you don't yet have access to an online sportsbook, check out Monkey Knife Fight, a prop betting platform available in 31 states. Use our Monkey Knife Fight promo code to get a fantastic bonus.

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. Our goal is to help all of our members make more money playing daily fantasy sports!

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler