Hanley Ramirez vs THE WORLD

[AquaMan2342]

I like the first one better....leaves more to the imagination IMO because you can kinda see both whole boobs moving around. Definitely a higher xBOOB.

[Fenway Punk]

Agreed. In the first one you can tell that she's intentially making her goddess bounce, whereas the second photo I think she was just bouncing around. *snicker*

So yeah, I'm declaring that Hanley has become a risky pick. In the first round, I want guareenteed first round numbers, not potentially the best "postion numbers"

[markj11]

Agreed. In the first one you can tell that she's intentially making her goddess bounce, whereas the second photo I think she was just bouncing around. *snicker*

So yeah, I'm declaring that Hanley has become a risky pick. In the first round, I want guareenteed first round numbers, not potentially the best "postion numbers"

What qualifies as guaranteed 1st round numbers?

[The Artful Dodger]

I like the first one better....leaves more to the imagination IMO because you can kinda see both whole boobs moving around. Definitely a higher xBOOB.

You have to admit her xHott takes a big hit when she's prone to weeknight ravaging from one Russell Brand.

[The Artful Dodger]

Agreed. In the first one you can tell that she's intentially making her goddess bounce, whereas the second photo I think she was just bouncing around. *snicker*

So yeah, I'm declaring that Hanley has become a risky pick. In the first round, I want guareenteed first round numbers, not potentially the best "postion numbers"

Truth be told, most of the first rounders this past year didn't produce up to their first round value. That's just the thing with first rounders: you don't get that much value for taking them there. Only because they're a steady bet to produce well enough to be considered a top 20-30 player, do you take them in the first round. Reliability to produce well and the upside to do a little more than that.

After all, leagues aren't won and lost in the first round. I'd still take Hanley as a top 3 pick, no question. He's a great bet to give a line that's worthy of 2nd round production, at the least, for scarce position. Still has the upside to best that too.

[Nerfherders]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove. If you think anyone should draft based on the ONE previous season, that's a lose every time. You draft based on what the player will PROBABLY do NEXT year. For me, Ramirez is a top 5 pick no question because he has the entire package and he's consistent. Those players are RARE.

[Skin Blues]

I think it's pretty obvious that the point he was trying to make is that position scarcity is given far too much weight by the average fantasy baseball player. And it's a valid point. Although it's more more true in traditional roto leagues that have CI, MI, and 5 OF spots. The idea behind it is that the replacement players at each position are generally just as good (or bad) as one another. The only real exception is catcher since the 25th best catcher is usually either really, really horrible at hitting, or doesn't get many at-bats.

[Fenway Punk]

I think it's pretty obvious that the point he was trying to make is that position scarcity is given far too much weight by the average fantasy baseball player. And it's a valid point. Although it's more more true in traditional roto leagues that have CI, MI, and 5 OF spots. The idea behind it is that the replacement players at each position are generally just as good (or bad) as one another. The only real exception is catcher since the 25th best catcher is usually either really, really horrible at hitting, or doesn't get many at-bats.

Glad to see somebody gets me.

[BitterDodgerFan]

don't most of us play in leagues with CI, MI, and extra OF spots anyways?

[Skin Blues]

I'm sure a lot of people do. I do, but I also know that many people on here play in standard yahoo style leagues with 1 C, 3 OF, and no CI/MI. Not sure of the split, really... it would be interesting to find out, considering all the rankings and stuff that get tossed around in here.