NFBC Message Boards

I am guilty of poking fun and even getting snarky in the direction of those folks that write about fantasy baseball.
I shouldn't.
What we have to remember is that these guys have our best interests at heart. Most put a lot of time and effort into their opinions and have information to back their arguments up.

I remember seeing the first magazines about fantasy baseball and articles in newspapers about them. I devoured them.
I didn't care about the byline. I didn't care about whether I agreed or disagreed with the writer.
All I knew was that somebody cared enough to write about something I was passionate about.
Time and experience made me look at these publications in a different way. I felt that the Grasshopper had passed the teacher.
Reading them became a chore of redundancy. A little like listening to Tim McCarver speaking of baseball.

Fantasy baseball has 100's of ways to skin the cat. We know that through our experience. And the folks that write about fantasy baseball are, for the most part, the same.
Most like to color inside the lines.
Most are going to see past failures such as John Buck or Yuni Betancourt be future failures as well.
Most are going to see past stars such as Ryan Braun and Miguel Cabrera continue to be stars.
There is nothing wrong with that. We play an inconsistent game while striving for consistency.

As NFBC'ers, most of us have the grasp and experience of the game. The writers are hard pressed to tell us anything we don't already know. We have attended 'Fantasy Camp' and graduated with flying colors. And it is easy for us to look at something a writer has written, and scoff now.
Too easy.
What I have to remember is that for every kid that has graduated from Fantasy Camp, there are thousands of kids still attending or waiting to be accepted.

Sure, we can all still learn. I still love decoding the Numerish of Todd Zola and Mastersball.
I don't agree with the opinions of Matthew Berry mostly, but it's fun to read his stuff.
Ron Shandler is different.
Most of us have read the Forecaster at one time or another. Some of us still do.
By personal choice I don't any more.
Still, there was a time when I couldn't wait for that thing to arrive at my doorstep and I'll bet there are thousands that still feel the same way now.

We grew up, fantasy-wise on Shandler.
He was like Tom Hanks.
He was like Bruce Springsteen.
He was THE name in fantasy baseball. The name everybody knew.
But, our hobby is not like acting is for Hanks. Or singing for Springsteen.
In our hobby, the reader or audience can become as skilled as the writer. Maybe even more so when only pertaining to the dome of the NFBC.

NFBC'ers may put more time into fantasy sports than some writers. We have a lot at stake and we love what we do.
The folks that write about fantasy sports already have guaranteed money for writing their pieces.
It's their job.
What we have to remember is that most of these pieces are not written with an NFBC'er in mind. If we want that, I suggest Mastersball. The only site I know of that will signal out the NFBC and even slant writings in accordance with the NFBC.
It's a delight.

Most pieces are written for the Yahoo Kids. And that's ok. Because we were all Yahoo Kids.
So, when Shandler writes a piece about Mike Trout only one month into the season, we have to remember that-
A)We know Shandler wants to be right. We all do.
B)We know that it was too early.
C)We know that he loves 'regression' candidates.
D) We know that it isn't directed for learned fantasy players

In my mind, to Shandler, Trout is the black Spy to his White Spy, in a Mad Magazine sense. Trout was an aberration to Shandler's numbers. He shattered and obliterated all the categories that Shandler finds sacred. He is more comfortable projecting a climb for Bryce Harper rather than suggesting that Trout could have another season that could compare with last season.
Harper is a member of the Progressive Party. Trout a member of the Regressive Party.
Shandler struck while the iron was cold with his article.

I'll be rooting for Trout this year. I don't have him on even one of my teams this year. But, he has become my progressive, 'regressive' choice in beating back naysayers. He is one of the most exciting players in baseball and has become one of only a handfull of baseball players, that us, as fans, cannot take our eyes off.
If playing up to his expectations and the numbers from last year, he will provide entertainment for us all. Both in watching him during the season and in watching Shandler explain to Yahoo Kids that, yes, he can be guilty of using a small sample size of numbers to make a point.

Oh, heck with it,I don't even know why I am so passionate about this subject. I have nothing but respect for Ron Shandler. I don't have Mike Trout on a single team.
I am most perplexed by the timing of an article by a writer who likes to see a season's worth of stats, not a month.
At the same time, in crying foul, I'm probably coming off as a baby, so I've decided to quit complaining and fight fire with fire.

Look, I don't know Numerish. I don't care about BABIP or fly ball percentage. For this article, that was Shandler's weapon of choice.
I'll use Stuff.


If wanting to blame Trout for less steals, blame Mike Sciosia, not Trout. From the leadoff spot, Trout had more freedom and opportunity to run. Trout has twice as many bats from the second spot in the lineup than leading off.

Since April 16, Mike Trout is third in baseball in rbi. THIRD. ALL OF BASEBALL.

Only 20 players in baseball have at least four home runs and four rbi, Mike Trout is one of them.

Only 14 players in baseball have at least 18 rbi and runs, Mike Trout is one of them.

Last year, Mike Trout was one for 11 in April.

At the end of June last year, Trout had eight homers.

Throuh April, May, and June last year, Trout had 24 extra base hits.
This year, he already has 16.

In actuality, we are playing a game with five categories for offensive players. To the Numerish, Trout is regressing.
I don't see it.
I see a guy who has less average than last year. But also a fella who is positioning himself well in the other categories.
The Angel hitters have not helped matters along with an ailing Aybar and under performing Pujols and Hamilton, but that is only a current situation and one that is bound to show favor towards Trout.
Truly, I don't see regression even over a month's time as much as I see unfortunate circumstances beyond Trout's control.
Thank you for reading, and now I shall move on....

Here is the silliness of debating Trout regression ...

If you boil all hitters stats down to one number, auction value, three players were well ahead of the pack.
Mike Trout - $54
Ryan Braun - $51
Miguel "triple crown" Cabrera - $47

Because Trout missed the beginning of the season, his value jumps to $62 on a per week played basis. In other words, he blew away the entire league in fantasy value - including the first triple crown winner in 30 years, or whatever it was.
Let's review prior years:
In 2011, four players were at $45+: Kemp, Ellsbury, Braun, Granderson.
In 2010, just Cargo and Pujols
In 2009, only Pujols.
In 2008, no one.
In 2007, there were a whopping six players: ARod, Hanley, Rollins, Holliday, Wright and Reyes.
In 2006, Pujols, Soriano, Reyes and Howard.

In the past 7 seasons, only ARod surpassed Trout's $62. And someone thinks Schandler is going out on a limb expecting regression? What??? It was one of the greatest fantasy seasons in recent history, surpassed only by a roided up ARod. That is not going out on a limb, that is an incredibly safe call.

Secondly, because Schandler expects regression, he also decided to go for the attention-getting move of bouncing him not only out of the top 3, but out of the top 10 or top 15 players? That is just folly.

Every season top players fall out of first round value - but few are highly predictable barring injury or a known lack of change in illegal substance. And for those that are, it probably goes to either a situation change or wholly unsustainable stats. Trout's stats might be unsustainable in terms of last season's ratios per ab, but a healthy and reasonable downward adjustment still makes him as good a bet as any to be a top 3 player.

Here is what I projected for Trout -
BABIP 34.9%, down from 39%
1 HR per 28 PA (plate appearances), down from 1 per 21 PA
1 SB attempt per 16 PA, down from 1 per 12 PA
1 R per 5.8 PA, down from 1 per 5.0
1 RBI per 8.1 PA, down from 7.7

In other words, a healthy downgrade in ratios across the board still puts him at a 290 BA with 25 HR, 40 SB, 120 R and 85 RBI. That is worth $41, and that is a top 3 player. With the change in lineup, maybe the RBIs are higher and Rs are lower, maybe he steals less but could hit for more power. In the end, I think it's a wash and he's a $40+ player if he stays healthy all season and as likely as anyone in the league (probably a 1 in 5 chance) to be the #1 fantasy player in baseball.

To discount him because of his age - because statistics say that on average 21-year olds don't do this - is a silly mis-use of statistics and a lack of eyeball use. That is like saying 99.999% of software startups don't become Google - true, but Google became Google. And Trout was/is Trout because he has uncommon baseball abilities. And so it seems the numerish route with a different perspective can lead to exactly where Doughy is. The uncommon/outlier/black swans happen each season, but if all you see are numbers you'll probably miss them.