Over the years my best strategy on who to sit and who to start has always been my hitters numbers vs. the pitchers their facing that day, no matter how big a star they are. For example if i have wright and say edwin encarnacion, and wright is 0-12 against say paul maholm today and Edwin is 15-32 against Brett myers, i will start edwin over wright for the day. Do you guys agree with this strategy? I know this shouldnt be the only determining factor but i believe it is the most important. I would love to hear other opinions on this
I very rarely ever tweak my lineup....the only time I will switch guys around is if my starter is going on a week long slump and my backup is raking....other than that I let my players play.
J35J wrote:I very rarely ever tweak my lineup....the only time I will switch guys around is if my starter is going on a week long slump and my backup is raking....other than that I let my players play.
+1, unless you're also talking about pitchers.
I will bench everyone except my #1 pitcher in a given situation.
I never base my decisions on individual match-ups. The sample size for those data are far too small to draw any reliable conclusions. I matchup some of my backend hitters and pitchers based on L/R platoon situations, park factors, or overall quality of the pitcher/lineup they will be facing.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
I do it but not on as extreme players as you mentioned. If I have 2 similar OF and a slot for only one but not if one is Holliday and the other is Raul Ibanez.
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
If you have daily roster chances, I don't see a problem with benching a top hitter if he's slumping. I don't buy into the fact that since I drafted Matt Holliday 1st round, I NEED to start him everyday. If he's slumping for 3 weeks, I'm going to bench him until he snaps out of it. If you have weekly roster chances, then I can see the argument for always starting your studs. But otherwise, I play the hot hand for the most part.
In terms of doing batter vs. pitcher matchups, I'll look at them if I have 2 players who I'm not sure of (a UTL or something.) If David Wright is mashing though, I won't sit him. But again, if he's slumping for a month, I have no problem benching him for a few days until he gets back on the right track.
BronXBombers51 wrote:If you have daily roster chances, I don't see a problem with benching a top hitter if he's slumping. I don't buy into the fact that since I drafted Matt Holliday 1st round, I NEED to start him everyday. If he's slumping for 3 weeks, I'm going to bench him until he snaps out of it. If you have weekly roster chances, then I can see the argument for always starting your studs. But otherwise, I play the hot hand for the most part.
In terms of doing batter vs. pitcher matchups, I'll look at them if I have 2 players who I'm not sure of (a UTL or something.) If David Wright is mashing though, I won't sit him. But again, if he's slumping for a month, I have no problem benching him for a few days until he gets back on the right track.
This is a much more reasonable strategy in H2H than in Roto, though I'm not in huge favor of it in either format. In Roto, benching Matt Holliday due to a slump runs the risk of missing out on valuable statistics that he's putting up even during his slump vs replacement, as well as stats you miss out on in the time period after he's out of his slump and you insert him back in your roster vs. replacement. Last year, for example, if you started Matt Holliday every single game, and never removed him from your lineup, he added to your Roto scores .340, 36 HR, 137 RBI, 120 R, 11 SB. In my opinion, benching him during his 'slumps' increases the odds at losing out on his stats than adding those of a replacement level player, in the short run. If you're confident in a player's ability and think he's in line to finish with bulky totals overall, there's no sense in benching him in Roto, IMO.
This is a much more reasonable strategy in H2H than in Roto, though I'm not in huge favor of it in either format. In Roto, benching Matt Holliday due to a slump runs the risk of missing out on valuable statistics that he's putting up even during his slump vs replacement, as well as stats you miss out on in the time period after he's out of his slump and you insert him back in your roster vs. replacement. Last year, for example, if you started Matt Holliday every single game, and never removed him from your lineup, he added to your Roto scores .340, 36 HR, 137 RBI, 120 R, 11 SB. In my opinion, benching him during his 'slumps' increases the odds at losing out on his stats than adding those of a replacement level player, in the short run.
I disagree with this attitude. First of all, last season's Matt Holliday is a bad example (though I know you weren't the one who brought him up) because he never had a three-week slump. But say for the sake of argument that you know Matt Holliday will hit .340 with 36 homers, 137 RBI, etc. etc. Now, it's mid-July, and he's mired in a two-week long 8-for-52 slump. You have an average guy -- say young Jeremy Hermida, or maybe Raul Ibanez -- sitting on your bench, and he's batting .360 with 3 homers in the last week. I feel like you have to put him in. Just ride him for a few days. As soon as he puts up a couple 0-fers or Holliday hits a home run, you put the stud back in. You miss out on one good game, tops. There's no risk there.
Sure, you can get .340 with 36 homers by never taking Holliday out. That's great. But why settle for that? If you're careful during slumps, maybe you can get .344 with 39 homers. And every little bit helps.
I'd say the risk is greater than the reward. Holliday is a bad example, as is any proven stud hitter. There is too good of a chance of Holliday doing something during the slump. In h2h, its not as bad of an idea.
This is a much more reasonable strategy in H2H than in Roto, though I'm not in huge favor of it in either format. In Roto, benching Matt Holliday due to a slump runs the risk of missing out on valuable statistics that he's putting up even during his slump vs replacement, as well as stats you miss out on in the time period after he's out of his slump and you insert him back in your roster vs. replacement. Last year, for example, if you started Matt Holliday every single game, and never removed him from your lineup, he added to your Roto scores .340, 36 HR, 137 RBI, 120 R, 11 SB. In my opinion, benching him during his 'slumps' increases the odds at losing out on his stats than adding those of a replacement level player, in the short run.
I disagree with this attitude. First of all, last season's Matt Holliday is a bad example (though I know you weren't the one who brought him up) because he never had a three-week slump. But say for the sake of argument that you know Matt Holliday will hit .340 with 36 homers, 137 RBI, etc. etc. Now, it's mid-July, and he's mired in a two-week long 8-for-52 slump. You have an average guy -- say young Jeremy Hermida, or maybe Raul Ibanez -- sitting on your bench, and he's batting .360 with 3 homers in the last week. I feel like you have to put him in. Just ride him for a few days. As soon as he puts up a couple 0-fers or Holliday hits a home run, you put the stud back in. You miss out on one good game, tops. There's no risk there.
Sure, you can get .340 with 36 homers by never taking Holliday out. That's great. But why settle for that? If you're careful during slumps, maybe you can get .344 with 39 homers. And every little bit helps.
What are your thoughts, bigh0rt?
Yall are talking about hot streaks and slumps, the question was match ups. Two good examples of hot streaks and slumps were Wright and Shef. They were more valuable if you benched them for the first month.
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by trey3kt » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:04 pm 
