When a cigar is not just a cigar
by Derek AmbrosinoNovember 09, 2009
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.
February 11, 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. Dish TV Packages options for all televised baseball games.
Or you can search by:
Gear up for baseball season with Chicago White Sox tickets and New York Yankees tickets. LA Angels tickets, Houston Astros tickets, and Atlanta Braves tickets are hot sellers! You can get Boston Red Sox tickets, San Diego Padres tickets or Chicago Cubs tickets for your favorite baseball fan. Coast to Coast Tickets has the best MLB tickets like Minnesota Twins tickets, LA Dodgers tickets, Milwaukee Brewers tickets, New York Met tickets and St. Louis Cardinals tickets.  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 |
When a cigar is not just a cigarby Derek AmbrosinoNovember 09, 2009 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
Andrew said...
This is excellent, Derek. I really wish more experts cared more about actually forming the best roster than just targeting sleepers. Posted 11/09 at 11:27 AM
Derek Ambrosino said...
Joel, I think you may have missed my point(s) a bit. I didn’t mean to cherrypick in order to attack “experts” or to make a disingenuous argument. The Bobby Crosby mention was just an anecdote to give credence to the notion that we know well-established pundits in the mainstream baseball media do or say things for the purposes of creating contraversy or simply to contradict prevailing opinion, but we never really stop to think whether a prominent fantasy writer could have ulterior motives, even if those motives are largely implicit. While I understand there are fundamental differences between the two industries that make a fantasy writer less likely to do these things, this still seems to me to be at least a mildly interesting dichotomy. I was speaking specifically about one specific archetype, if you will, of likely inadvertant bias. I’m also not saying that reaches never pan out. Any player who you honestly think is the best option (or has just as good a chance as anybody else available as being the best option) at that spot/price point is not a reach. If your pick doesn’t fit that criteria, it is a reach. I love Josh Johnson, I had him on literally every one of my fantasy teams this season. But, I think it’s safe to say that if were drafting him where the other more established, perenial CYA candidates were going, you were “reaching,” even if his final performance made him value neutral where you drafted him. ...I could split queens at a blackjack table and win both hands, doesn’t mean it was a smart move when I made it though. Posted 11/09 at 03:44 PM
Derek Ambrosino said...
I just want to mention for the sake of disclosure, that one of my editors reminded me that the pundit who predicted Crobsy for MVP was indeed Peter Gammons. I had truly forgotten who it was, and cognitive dissonance must have compelled me to assume it wasn’t one of their sacred cows. ...So, maybe Gammons really was on his own on that one, who knows? In light of that, I guess my comment about “non-sacred” pundits was off base. Either Gammons went off the reservation for a bit, or there are no sacred cows when it comes to manufacturing disingenuous edginess and discord in the mainstream sports media. Posted 11/09 at 04:55 PM
John Miller said...
I chuckle over these so called expert drafts. I cant believe if they were putting up there own cash for these drafts they would pick like they do. With the easy access to all for saremetrics/fanalytics and etc , there is little need or reason to pay attention to actual drafts or “hard” projections. Posted 11/09 at 06:35 PM
Mike said...
Very interesting stuff. I never thought about it like that, but in mock drafts, it seems like a perfectly obvious human response. And not to be a stickler, but I think Reynolds made the Crosby pick for MVP. So… Posted 11/09 at 06:55 PM
R M said...
I had one team this year that had Jay Bruce, Chris Davis, Alexei Ramirez, and BJ Upton on it. I didn’t overdraft anyone but Chris Davis, so I still finished 4th of 10 in Roto which isn’t that great, but it could have been a total disaster if I had completely relied on these guys. That team looked amazing pre-season, I guess this is just an example of what can go wrong when you go for upside instead of consistant veterans. Posted 11/11 at 01:28 AM
Brian Oakchunas said...
“If you want player X, but he’s not one of those players, it makes no difference if that was your last chance to draft that player, no? Am I missing something?” Sorry but yes. Let me give you an example. Last year I wanted Jayson Werth. I had him estimated to have third round value (which turned out to be correct) and by the fourth or fifth round he may have been the most valuable player on my board. Drafting him then, even though he is the most valuable player on my board, would be extremely stupid, however. I can draft other guys who are going to go quicker. His ADP was maybe round eight, so I pick him up in round seven, which could result in a comment of “Maybe I reached, but I was afraid he wouldn’t be there in another round.” In other words, I reached above where I thought others would take him, but not above what I thought he was worth (or Werth, as it were). Now, you could say that in an early mock draft, you are creating the round someone goes in and therefore should pick him in the third, but you should still treat it as a competition. Based on what you believe perceptions of the player are and earlier mocks, you can guess where a guy might go. You don’t want to just take him anywhere without regard to what your competitors might do. Posted 11/12 at 02:30 PM
Derek Ambrosino said...
To your first para, I’ll simply say that in the case you describe, you were not reaching. He was the most valuable player on your board and you took him. Passing for as long as you felt you could to maximize the value of that pick was even better execution. The inherent risk there is how long you want to press your luck and that’s up to each player to decide. I successfully did that with Abreu this year in my main league, but rolled the dice one too many times on Vazquez slipping and crapped out on that one. Nonetheless, what you did isn’t what I’m referring to. I’m talking about people who take players who are not the highest rated player on their board just because they are intruiged by their upside and they know said player will not make it back to them. As to your second para, I’m inclined to disagree and say that it is either one or the other. If it’s a “mock” then it’s not a competition. Either you are engaging in a communal exercise to calibrate value or you are in a competition to build the best roster. If you are not playing out the season, the by definition it must be the former because there is no metric by which you can evaluate the latter. Posted 11/12 at 03:27 PM
patrick dicaprio said...
nice article! i will point out one thing though: “Every year there are a few darlings of the “expert” community. For some reason that maybe Malcolm Gladwell can explain…” About two years ago or so I wrote and article on this blog about Tacit Communication. That is what is going on. this was really an excellent piece though, so great job! Posted 11/16 at 01:50 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. | ||||
The same analyst predicted Josh Johnson as the 2009 NL Cy Young winner which was equally as bold since Johnson had less than 100 innings coming off TJ and never been in the top 10 vote.
Although Johnson won’t win the Cy, he’ll likely end up in 5th in a strong class for NL candidates. That great call by the same analyst wouldn’t get mentioned in this type of article.
There was also a lot of perceived reaching from “experts” saying they would never take Tim Lincecum (or any pitcher) with a top 10 pick and those who did were handsomely rewarded as Lincecum provided top 5 value while still having an inferior year to 2008. Similar reaches who pan out also wouldn’t get mentioned in this type of article.