Get It Now!Hardball Times Annual is now available. It's got 300 pages of articles, commentary and even a crossword puzzle. You can buy the Annual at Amazon, for your Kindle or on our own page (which helps us the most financially). However you buy it, enjoy!
And here's the full roster.
Most Recent Comments
THT Fantasy has moved to Rotographs (4)
Flashes of brilliance: Introducing True Quality Starts (2)
THT Roundtable: How seriously do experts take mock drafts? (21)
Player-A-Day: Tim Lincecum (3)
Player-A-Day: Josmil Pinto (5)
All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
THT's Fantasy Archives
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Last month, fellow THT writer Derek Ambrosino wrote a couple of articles that spurred some debate in the comments (Approaching unconscious competence and One category roar, five category snore). I had some of my own thoughts on a few of the concepts and theories discussed and wanted to share them.
As some quick background, most of the discussion centered around the relative value of one-category players and players who are a little above replacement in all five categories but spectacular in none.
Drafting to trade
In the comment section of Derek A.’s first article, there was a little talk about drafting with the intent to trade. As a general rule of thumb, most fantasy analysts will warn against “drafting to trade.” Still, Derek A. argued that “the chances that somebody needs a 40-steal guy regardless of the rest of that player's (lack of) skill set (or at least feels that they need such a player) is probably higher than the likelihood that somebody feels they need a Garrett Anderson.” I think most of us would agree with this statement (I certainly do), so the question then becomes: “Should this be a consideration when we’re initially drafting our players?” My answer to this question is a definite “yes.”
A couple years ago, I discussed one of my favorite mixed-league strategies: that of drafting high-upside players late in the draft. This seems to be a very popular strategy these days, and I think the principles of the strategy are very closely related to our discussion on the trade value of one-category studs.
When we discuss “high-upside” players, we generally think about young, toolsy players who have a higher probability of significantly outperforming their projections than an established, 30-something-year-old veteran does. However, I don’t believe that upside must be constrained to pure production. Why shouldn’t potential future trade value be incorporated in the "upside" bucket? After all, it all leads to the same goal: winning. Whether that win comes as a result of your 20th-round pick hitting like a third-rounder or as a result of you trading your 20th-round speedster for a top-notch SP shouldn’t matter one ounce.
Value is dynamic
Another facet of the comment section discussion dealt with whether or not we should be drafting one-category players in the first place. Reader Andrew P. talked about how he disliked the idea of forgoing "more valuable” players in order to achieve balance by taking a one-trick pony. Not to pick on Andrew, but I’m not so sure it’s as simple as that.
Value is a funny thing, in that it is never static. I think when a lot of people talk about draft-day value, they think of it in a vacuum—as a precise, static number—but this couldn’t be further from the case. Value is dynamic and is unique to every team at every pick.
If you print out a list of players and dollar values and take that to your draft, the truth of the matter is, those dollar values will only truly be accurate until the first pick of the draft is made. After players have been removed from the pool and/or added to your team, the value of the remaining players will change. It will change—even if only slightly—every single time a player is removed from the pool. Over the course of an entire draft, those values can change quite drastically, especially if you’ve overloaded on one category and are short in another.
Here’s an extreme example to ponder: Let’s say the ghost of Ricky Henderson (from his 130-steal season) is resurrected and you draft him. Then you add a 118-SB Lou Brock clone. With your next pick, your pre-draft cheat sheet may say that the 110-SB Vince Coleman impostor is the best player on the board, but in the context of your team (which now sports phantom Ricky and Lou), Vince Coleman is significantly less valuable.
Why? Because you don’t need those steals! You’ve got 250 under your belt already—quite possibly enough to win the category outright. So the value of the remaining steals in the player pool is essentially zero for your team. For some other team participating in the draft, Coleman will be very appealing. But for you, the relative value of steals is extremely low, in turn raising the relative value of all the other categories. And this happens every time a player is selected (just not as drastically)—supply changes, your team needs change, and thus, every player's value changes.
I actually just had a similar situation play out in a mock draft I participated in for USA Today’s preseason magazine. I ended up with Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan and Chris Davis on the power side and Michael Bourn, Nyjer Morgan and Luis Castillo on the average/steals side. Once you take a player who will contribute heavily to HRs and RBIs but little to average and steals, the relative value of HRs and RBIs to your team decreases, and the relative value of average and steals increases.
I ended up doing a lot of "balancing" in this draft. I put balancing in quotes because it’s a word that often gets used without full understanding of what it means or why/when it should be done. I wasn’t just taking these one-trick ponies because I felt I needed "balance" (something I don’t feel is necessary just for the sake of it); I was taking them because their relative value was higher to my team because of its current makeup at that point in the draft.
The tradeability of different players
My last point today deals with the ability to trade a one-trick pony versus a guy who will help out a little bit in each category. Derek A. used Melky Cabrera as an example of the latter, so I’ll continue using him. He posited that Melky would be a lot harder to trade than, say, Elvis Andrus or Scott Podsednik who have much of their value tied up in one category. I absolutely agree, but I have a couple ideas of my own as to why this is the case.
The first is a pretty obvious one (and one Derek A. touched on briefly). Midseason, teams are often looking to trade for categories as opposed to players. If acquiring one player can catapult your team three or four points in the standings, that’s going to be a lot more appealing than acquiring a player who merely helps in acquiring three or four points across several categories. It's a matter of leverage.
One other important consideration, though, is that in our 12-team mixed league example, players like Melky and Garrett Anderson are end-of-the-bench guys. They are the guys drafted in the last few rounds or taken off the waiver wire during the season. While opinions of the top players in the league rarely differ from owner-to-owner (I think we can all agree that Albert Pujols and Mark Teixeira and Jacoby Ellsbury are worthy of a pick in the first few rounds), opinions of the guys taken at the end of draft differ greatly. One owner’s late-round bargain is viewed as should-be-waiver-wire-fodder by another owner.
Feel free to compare rankings between different sites and you’ll see exactly what I mean. Guys appearing in spots Nos. 248, 249 and 250 on one site’s list might not appear at all on another’s. Last year, Baseball HQ loved Mike Jacobs; I hated him. I loved Nyjer Morgan; my own readers hated him .
Opinions diverge greatly at the end of drafts, so if you’re the guy who owns Melky Cabrera, there’s a very good chance you like him more than anyone else in your league (this is true to an extent for all players you draft, but particularly among late-round selections). And if that’s the case, how are you going to get what you consider equal (or greater) value in a trade? While Melky’s worth is open to interpretation, Andrus’ ability to steal a base is much less so.
Further compounding this reality is something called the endowment effect—the tendency for people to overvalue or grow attached to what they already have. As a result of this, owners are going to be more likely to want to keep their own, unspectacular end-of-bench guys than to acquire yours.
Just some stuff to think about. I realize these ideas weren't completely related, but I think they were all worth putting out there. If anyone has any of their own thoughts or questions, feel free to comment.
Posted by Derek Carty at 5:40am
By their nature, wins are fickle. Yes, a correlation does exist between wins and ERA, but I've seen great pitchers finish seasons with few wins and mediocre pitchers rack up wins like bad jokes in a Will Ferrell movie. How else could Joe Saunders finish 2009 with 16 wins and a 4.60 ERA while Randy Wolf gets only 11 wins out of his 3.23 ERA?
There are other factors besides a pitcher's skill level such as innings pitched per start, bullpen strength, and offensive runs per game that influence how often a pitcher will get a win; however luck still plays a large role in the way wins are distributed. Therefore it is smart to not draft for wins since luck is unpredictable.
There are times, though, in daily Head-to-Head leagues when you need to harness the power of wins to become victorious in a particular week. Such times typically occur on Saturday nights when you are trailing by one in the wins category and are setting your lineup for Sunday. Despite the unpredictability of wins, there is a strategy you can use to increase the chance you will earn at least one win and that is by starting opposing pitchers.
Just to make it clear, opposing pitchers are two starting pitchers who are pitching against each other in the same game. So for example in the first Yankees-Red Sox game of 2010, the opposing pitchers will most likely be C.C. Sabathia and Josh Beckett. The advantage of starting opposing pitchers in getting a win might not reveal itself right away so allow me to dazzle you with some math that will make clear the advantage.
Starting pitchers as a whole could have earned 2,430 wins in 2009 since there are that same 2,430 total games played in a season and one win is awarded per game. Instead of getting 2,430 wins though, starters earned only 1,706 wins, meaning 724 wins were lost to relievers. What this means is that 70 percent of the time, the win will go to one of the starting pitchers while there is a 30 percent chance a reliever gets it. This 70-30 ratio is fairly stable from year to year. With a 70 percent chance of the starters getting the win, each starter then has a 35 percent chance of getting the win assuming each pitcher is league average.
From a fantasy perspective, starting opposing pitchers offers a unique opportunity to garner wins at a higher rate. When starting both starting pitchers, you have a 70 percent chance of earning a win for your fantasy team. When starting two random pitchers however, you only have a 45.5 percent chance*. Why then would you not always start opposing pitchers if it gives you a extra 25 percent chance to get a win compared to starting two random pitchers?
*For the less mathematically savvy among us, I got to 45.5 percent by first finding the chance both pitchers get the win (.35 * .35 = 12.25%) and then finding the chance both pitchers do not get the win (.65 * .65 = 42.25%). The chance then, that one pitcher gets the win is 100 minus the sum of those percents which is 100 - (12.25 + 42.25) = 45.5 percent.
The answer is that your win potential is capped at one win with opposing pitchers, but with random pitchers there is the chance you earn two wins, a 12.25 percent chance to be exact. Therefore the two-win potential reward of random pitchers balances the decreased chance of getting one win and also the increased chance of getting zero wins.
Back to fantasy
It is time to take a step back and understand how opposing pitchers can be utilized in fantasy leagues in a practical sense. It is important to note that, over the long run, starting opposing pitchers will not necessarily result in more wins because of the two-win potential of two random pitchers. Starting opposing pitchers can come in handy though in the scenario I detailed towards the beginning of the article, and that is in a Head-to-Head league with daily roster updates.
If all you need is one win and there is a game in which both pitchers in that game are obtainable, theoretically you would be increasing you odds of getting that win by starting both of those pitchers as opposed to two starters in different games. However what's true in theory is not always true in practice and since all teams, pitchers, offenses, and bullpens are not created equal, the question becomes how much of a decrease in pitcher skill should you accept in order to start two opposing pitchers?
It should be obvious that even if Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee are not opposing each other you would still want to start them since they earn wins at above the average 35 percent rate; however, a point must exist where the difference in pitcher skill is overshadowed by the advantage starting opposing pitchers offers. I understand that this pursuit is limited in its practicality since it can only be used in a certain league type in a somewhat rare situation, but for me, it is pursuits like this that make fantasy baseball so enjoyable.
Posted by Paul Singman at 5:01am
This is Page 1 of 1 THT Fantasy Focus pages