Can you really play it safe?
by Derek AmbrosinoJanuary 18, 2012
Derek Ambrosino aspires to one day, like Dan Quisenberry, find a delivery in his flaw, you can send him questions, comments, or suggestions at digglahhh AT yahoo DOT com.
May 21, 2012
Now Available for 2012 THT Essentials: Now Available The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2012, an annual "must buy" for all baseball fans, is now shipping. Read this article to learn more about it.
THT's latest book 
Lucas Apostoleris
Rich Barbieri John Barten Brian Borawski Vince Caramela Chris Jaffe Brad Johnson Mat Kovach Kevin Lai Myron Logan Chris Lund Bruce Markusen Jeff Moore Troy Patterson Harry Pavlidis Dave Studeman Steve Treder David Wade And here's the full roster.
Or you can search by:
 All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Part of the USA Today Sports Media Group |
Can you really play it safe?by Derek AmbrosinoJanuary 18, 2012 Derek Ambrosino aspires to one day, like Dan Quisenberry, find a delivery in his flaw, you can send him questions, comments, or suggestions at digglahhh AT yahoo DOT com. Comments
Ben Pritchett said...
So Derek, it sounds I’m a day trader, and you’re a mutual fund. We can both make money but in different ways. A conservatist plays not to fail. A liberal player plays to win. Both strategies are almost personality based, and both have merit. I’m getting giddy just beginning to have these strategy discussions. By the way, I loved the Freakonomics example. There’s another book called Outliers I hear is great but haven’t gotten the chance to read it yet. It’s funny how real world examples can always be related back to fantasy baseball and can actually influence the way you play. Posted 01/18 at 10:40 AM
Brad Johnson said...
Playing not to fail makes it very hard to win. You’re essentially counting on every other team to fail more than you. Poker always has really good analogies for fantasy baseball. It’s usually better to be aggressive than passive. In poker, I drift between the two strategies because sometimes I find myself in over my head. I’m the kind of poker player who’s played 10s or 100s of thousands of hands and yet I’m probably within $50 of even for my career. (Part of that is playing micro-blinds online). When over my head, I switch to passive mode until I learn the players. I’ve yet to find myself in over my head in fantasy baseball. I’ve employed an aggressive approach over the last 3 years and have seen great success including 3 first place finishes in 2011 (out of 4 leagues). Prior to 2009, I definitely employed a risk averse approach. My highest ranking was 3 of 14 in a fairly weak league. Since changing my strategy in ‘09 I have finished first in five out of ten leagues, second in two others, third, fifth (THT league last year), and 14th (dead last). That last place finish is a great example of aggression/risk seeking behavior backfiring. I drafted Josh Hamilton and Grady Sizemore with my top 2 picks in ‘09. Both posted lost seasons and I flailed around trying to save my team for most of the season. By flailing, I took a probably mid-pack roster back to last place. But why settle for 6th? It’s the same as 14th in the end. Posted 01/18 at 11:18 AM
Ben Pritchett said...
“If you ain’t first, you’re last!” Posted 01/18 at 11:26 AM
Brad Johnson said...
Well, I’ll take 2nd too. That’s usually a 3.5x return on the buy in. And 3rd’s sometime a 1x return. So my philosophy is money or bust. Of course I easily could have hit 3rd in the THT league last year and over played my hand down the stretch. Posted 01/18 at 11:35 AM
Derek Ambrosino said...
Brad, I think poker analogies are apt too, but here would be mine. Building a fantasy team and playing out the season is like being a part of a larger tournament style. You can be aggressive from jump and try to be the chip leader as the pool thing, but I’d rather hang around and make sure I’m consistently in the mix when the field starts to slim down to those who are going to be “in the money.” Then, it’s time to (generally) gradually ramp up your aggressiveness (as most others tend to get tighter). It doesn’t make sense to me to consistently be aggressive in the opening rounds because the risk is at least as large as the opportunity, and over time you’re likely to give back what you win by playing that way. ...In poker or fantasy baseball, some element of luck is involved. At some point you kind have to throw yourself at the mercy of the winds of fortune - if those winds only have to carry you the last mile, or gust every once in a while to save you from your demise, then there’s a decent chance of them working out in your favor. The more you rely on them though, the more you cede control of the situation. Posted 01/18 at 10:49 PM
Derek Ambrosino said...
Ben, I actually think Freakonomics is overrated as a book. I find the podcast entertaining though, and somewhat educational as well. Largely, it’s a mix of basic economics and pop sociology - that sounds like I’m dismissing it, but I love that blend. Outliers is quite good too - all of Gladwell’s work is, IMO - but it’s very much the same recipe. Pop sociology mixed with some fairly basic other academic discipline and great story telling. I remember I saw Gladwell speak about Outliers at the New Yorker festival prior to its release. My friend and I showed up early to get tickets - we missed the online presale the day before and the venue only withheld a very few to be sold on location, day-of. We didn’t really have much to do to kill the time between getting the tickets and going to the show, so we found the nearest bar. The bar was offering some weird boilermaker Guiness + shot of Jameson special or something. ...We were the only dudes showing up to a Malcolm Gladwell lecture at like 1:30 in the afternoon completely freaking hammered. ...He told the Aviance airlines story though (for those of you who read the book) and it was pretty freaking dope. Posted 01/18 at 10:54 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. | ||||
I take it this is not one of those leagues where keeping fewer players than the maximum results in an early round pick.
I hate when keepers are costless.