Trades are critical in fantasy sports and they are tough to pull off. Well, I should say it's tough to pull off a deal that helps your team without giving up too much.
Here now are some pointers on what to do and what not to do:
1. This is basic, but the other person has got to get something they want in the deal. This is not necessarily the same thing as the old saying, "You have to give value to get value." You may not. In fact, the easiest deals are when you can identify a player you own that you don't really like all that much but you find there is another person in your league who loves the guy. This may be because that person is a fan of the player's team or because they had him in a previous season or might have some sort of personal connection to the player. They may be willing to trade more value to you than how you value the asset.
2. It is best to work out the parameters of the deal over email. You are less likely to get swindled over email than you might in a conversation. It's a slower process. Also, sending trade offers on your league site only to have them declined and (hopefully) countered is not very efficient. Besides, early on you might be sending somewhat lopsided offers to test the waters... These "test the waters" types of lopsided offers can make people feel insulted. I'm talking about actual hard feelings that cause the other fantasy manager to dislike you as a person. I've seen it happen many times. It's a little weird, but they have an attachment to their players and a bad trade offer makes them feel like you are trying to take advantage of them or steal from them. It's not just business. You can't really say that you were just kidding. Go back and forth over email with questions like, "I think I heard you say you like Robinson Cano... Do you think we could work a deal that includes Howie Kendrick and maybe a couple of other guys like Sergio Santos and Brandon Morrow?" That way you aren't saying you want to steal a bunch of guys from them in a 3-for-1 offer. Anyone in their right mind would trade Kendrick plus something for Cano... and you are clearly aiming a little high with the request of Morrow and Santos, but it isn't out of line. They could come back and say all sorts of things, most likely a counter-offer. Now you are hammering out a deal.
3. Conventional wisdom says that the fantasy manager getting the best player in the deal usually wins the deal. This is because typically the "filler" players are not that far above replacement level. I don't believe this is always the case, or at least it shouldn't be. If I'm willing to trade Robinson Cano to you I really should be able to incrementally improve in two or three other areas. This is why the example above isn't out of line. The drop from Cano to Kendrick is a big one, but maybe my pitchers aren't very good. If Morrow would be my #3 starter and Santos would replace a middle reliever on my roster, then I've probably improved more than the drop at 2B hurts me.
4. Receiving an offer. Let's say someone sends you an offer via the software on the league site. The first thing you should do is send that person an email. In that message you may say, "I appreciate the offer and I hope we can work out a different deal in the future, but I really like Cano this year (like MVP-like him) and I doubt we can work something out for him unless you completely blow me away. Perhaps we can work a lesser deal for one of my guys like Alexei Ramirez or Tommy Hanson?" It's important that you mean it, but you may be coming from one of two places with a message like this. (1) I really, really don't see myself dealing Cano; or, (2) I need more for Cano than you are offering. Either way, now you are talking and working the deal over email. Keep the lines of communication open.
Okay, those are just a few pointers and I'm sure there will be more to come in the future. Best of luck to everyone in working out those mutually-beneficial deals this year. It truly is more of an art than a science.
Easy-to-use fantasy sports strategy. That's what we are all about here at the Brain. Join fantasy sports veteran and former ESPN Producer Dave McKay as we reveal new ways to think about the game. @TalktotheBrain
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Fall Into the Gap
That was one of the famous slogans from around 1980... "Fall into the Gap." Today I want to talk about a different gap... The one between the time that the experts make their rankings decisions and the time that you draft.
Typically the guys from ESPN, Yahoo, and CBS are doing their pre-draft rankings in January. Most of the time you will be drafting in late March. That's a serious gap my friends. A lot can change in that time, I assure you.
Spring Training stats are supposed to mean nothing, but I beg to differ. Most of the time the actual numbers might not carry that much weight, but there is a lot you can learn from what happens in February and March. Playing time decisions, health, pitch command, and more is sorted out in Spring Training. Pay attention! Pre-draft rankings can't take these things into account and this is a market inefficiency that you can exploit.
When you are drafting most people will default to the rankings from the site on which you are drafting. It just happens. Even the most prepared drafters will look at the site's rankings and average draft position, when available.
But you, please do not fall into that gap. Rise above. Create your own rankings and use them above everything else. Know what everyone else is thinking, but know it so that you can exploit the inefficiencies as they present themselves.
You will be able to know what most of your leaguemates are thinking and take advantage of the under-valuing of certain players in the middle rounds. And it is the middle rounds, I assure you, where true value can be found.
Best of luck this drafting season.
Typically the guys from ESPN, Yahoo, and CBS are doing their pre-draft rankings in January. Most of the time you will be drafting in late March. That's a serious gap my friends. A lot can change in that time, I assure you.
Spring Training stats are supposed to mean nothing, but I beg to differ. Most of the time the actual numbers might not carry that much weight, but there is a lot you can learn from what happens in February and March. Playing time decisions, health, pitch command, and more is sorted out in Spring Training. Pay attention! Pre-draft rankings can't take these things into account and this is a market inefficiency that you can exploit.
When you are drafting most people will default to the rankings from the site on which you are drafting. It just happens. Even the most prepared drafters will look at the site's rankings and average draft position, when available.
But you, please do not fall into that gap. Rise above. Create your own rankings and use them above everything else. Know what everyone else is thinking, but know it so that you can exploit the inefficiencies as they present themselves.
You will be able to know what most of your leaguemates are thinking and take advantage of the under-valuing of certain players in the middle rounds. And it is the middle rounds, I assure you, where true value can be found.
Best of luck this drafting season.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Podcast League
I was invited to be a part of a podcast league associated with the Fantasy Baseball Tonight podcast. It is a 14-team mixed 5x5 roto league. The only real twist is two Utility positions.
That, and the fact that there are 14 teams... at least five of which are experts. It should be a bumpy ride.
I drew pick number 10 and I just hoped that one of my top 8 guys would fall to me. Robinson Cano, come on down! Cano at #10 is pure gold.
Snaking back around to the 19th pick and Hanley Ramirez was still available, so I snatched him up. Not a bad start! The great thing about Hanley, as I have mentioned before, is that he will be a 3B and a SS this year so I had some flexibility going forward.
Round 3 I was at pick #38. Those 14-pick rounds start adding up, so I'll keep giving you the pick number and you can adjust for typical 12 or 10 team drafts. Anyway, Pablo Sandoval was there so I grabbed the Panda. My batting average is pretty nice. I anticipate Sandoval and Hanley to be a little over .300 this year and Cano to be closer to .320 or .325.
From there I found good value with Nelson Cruz at #47 and Jason Heyward at #66. My best bet in round 6 (pick #75) looked like Brian McCann, so I locked down the catcher position. Again, good BA there.
Pick 94 rolled around and I was starting to feel the heat of no pitching. The problem was that I wanted to take Brett Gardner and felt like if I didn't pull the trigger I wouldn't have a chance. I really like Gardner as a breakout candidate this year. Runs and stolen bases all over the place with him.
Billy Butler was next for me, so I'm feeling pretty good about my team.
C - McCann
1B - Butler
2B - Cano
SS - Hanley
3B - Sandoval
OF - Cruz
OF - Heyward
OF - Gardner
At this point I'm thinking that I need pitching no matter what and that I can fill in those two utility slots later. So, I was very happy to find Cory Luebke and Brandon Morrow with my next two picks. I love, love both of those guys.
In round 11, pick #150, I grabbed podcast favorite Lucas Duda. I now have three guys who can play 1B, four for the OF, and two at 3B. Not bad. There is great upside with Duda this year.
But wait, no closers yet. Argh! What to do, what to do... I am never one to punt a category, even in a deep league like this one. From that perspective, my next two picks probably should have been Brett Myers and Grant Balfour... but how could I do that with Jaime Garcia and Jeremy Hellickson calling my name? I need starters too, right?
Well, yes I do but the closers really went away. Most of them being picked right before me. I went back to the value well and grabbed Alexei Ramirez and Matt Joyce. I'm incredibly stacked offensively at this point for a 14-team league and I have four good starting pitchers that I really like.
Round 16. Do you really think that Joe Nathan keeps his job all year? Me neither. Mike Adams is the pick. Same thing with Matt Capps. Me neither. Glen Perkins in round 17. Drew Storen is injured for a little while in D.C. so how about Brad Lidge? Yuck, but alright.
Round 19 brought a pretty good steal in Daniel Murphy. Really nice stats last year, doesn't hurt you at BA, age 27, has a full time job, and qualifies at 1B, 2B, and 3B. Really nice bench option late.
Pick #271 was Tim Stauffer. Fantastic pickup as an SP#5. Pick #290 was John Mayberry. More positional flexibility and huge upside.
My last two picks were David Hernandez and Joaquin Benoit. J.J. Putz might get hurt and Hernandez is the clear backup. In Detroit Valverde is the man, but Benoit is the backup and he's a guy that can't hurt me.
That is a good point that I'll leave you with. These clear-cut closers-in-waiting are excellent gambles late in your drafts. They typically won't hurt your stats at all and even contribute a little here and there. And, if they somehow get the job you've struck gold.
That, and the fact that there are 14 teams... at least five of which are experts. It should be a bumpy ride.
I drew pick number 10 and I just hoped that one of my top 8 guys would fall to me. Robinson Cano, come on down! Cano at #10 is pure gold.
Snaking back around to the 19th pick and Hanley Ramirez was still available, so I snatched him up. Not a bad start! The great thing about Hanley, as I have mentioned before, is that he will be a 3B and a SS this year so I had some flexibility going forward.
Round 3 I was at pick #38. Those 14-pick rounds start adding up, so I'll keep giving you the pick number and you can adjust for typical 12 or 10 team drafts. Anyway, Pablo Sandoval was there so I grabbed the Panda. My batting average is pretty nice. I anticipate Sandoval and Hanley to be a little over .300 this year and Cano to be closer to .320 or .325.
From there I found good value with Nelson Cruz at #47 and Jason Heyward at #66. My best bet in round 6 (pick #75) looked like Brian McCann, so I locked down the catcher position. Again, good BA there.
Pick 94 rolled around and I was starting to feel the heat of no pitching. The problem was that I wanted to take Brett Gardner and felt like if I didn't pull the trigger I wouldn't have a chance. I really like Gardner as a breakout candidate this year. Runs and stolen bases all over the place with him.
Billy Butler was next for me, so I'm feeling pretty good about my team.
C - McCann
1B - Butler
2B - Cano
SS - Hanley
3B - Sandoval
OF - Cruz
OF - Heyward
OF - Gardner
At this point I'm thinking that I need pitching no matter what and that I can fill in those two utility slots later. So, I was very happy to find Cory Luebke and Brandon Morrow with my next two picks. I love, love both of those guys.
In round 11, pick #150, I grabbed podcast favorite Lucas Duda. I now have three guys who can play 1B, four for the OF, and two at 3B. Not bad. There is great upside with Duda this year.
But wait, no closers yet. Argh! What to do, what to do... I am never one to punt a category, even in a deep league like this one. From that perspective, my next two picks probably should have been Brett Myers and Grant Balfour... but how could I do that with Jaime Garcia and Jeremy Hellickson calling my name? I need starters too, right?
Well, yes I do but the closers really went away. Most of them being picked right before me. I went back to the value well and grabbed Alexei Ramirez and Matt Joyce. I'm incredibly stacked offensively at this point for a 14-team league and I have four good starting pitchers that I really like.
Round 16. Do you really think that Joe Nathan keeps his job all year? Me neither. Mike Adams is the pick. Same thing with Matt Capps. Me neither. Glen Perkins in round 17. Drew Storen is injured for a little while in D.C. so how about Brad Lidge? Yuck, but alright.
Round 19 brought a pretty good steal in Daniel Murphy. Really nice stats last year, doesn't hurt you at BA, age 27, has a full time job, and qualifies at 1B, 2B, and 3B. Really nice bench option late.
Pick #271 was Tim Stauffer. Fantastic pickup as an SP#5. Pick #290 was John Mayberry. More positional flexibility and huge upside.
My last two picks were David Hernandez and Joaquin Benoit. J.J. Putz might get hurt and Hernandez is the clear backup. In Detroit Valverde is the man, but Benoit is the backup and he's a guy that can't hurt me.
That is a good point that I'll leave you with. These clear-cut closers-in-waiting are excellent gambles late in your drafts. They typically won't hurt your stats at all and even contribute a little here and there. And, if they somehow get the job you've struck gold.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Luck is #1
It is fitting that Andrew Luck is going to be the #1 pick in the NFL draft this year because luck is the #1 thing you have to be worried about in fantasy football.
In baseball however, it is not nearly the same level of concern. It is still there, though. But worry not my faithful reader, there are things you can do to move luck further and further out of the equation for your league.
Here now is my list of ideas on how to have a "Less-Luck League":
1. Auction. This list isn't necessarily in order, but the first one is definitely number one no matter how you slice it. If you want to reduce the luck factor, draft in an auction instead of a snake draft. Everyone has the same access to all of the same players so it becomes a question of strategy and how much you want every player you go after.
2. FAAB. This is the auction of waiver wires. You get a set number of dollars to spend as bids on the waiver guys. The highest dollar figure is awarded the claim and those dollars are debited from that player's fixed annual budget.
3. Keepers. If you draft well one year you should be rewarded next year. Adding a number of keepers in your league carries your skill from one year into the next allowing the cream to rise to the top.
4. Big Leagues. Go ahead and sign up for a 14, 16, 18, or even 20 team league. There are more competitors so the best ones will be closer to the top. Usually. This isn't a sure-bet, but it helps.
5. Big Benches. More reserves reduces dependency on the waiver wire and ostensibly increases the display of skill in the league.
6. DL Slots. Some leagues don't have a DL at all. Most have one, some have more. I suggest having two DL slots so managers aren't faced with cutting a guy they so expertly picked up just because he is injured.
Any other thoughts? Chime in, we'd love to hear from you.
In baseball however, it is not nearly the same level of concern. It is still there, though. But worry not my faithful reader, there are things you can do to move luck further and further out of the equation for your league.
Here now is my list of ideas on how to have a "Less-Luck League":
1. Auction. This list isn't necessarily in order, but the first one is definitely number one no matter how you slice it. If you want to reduce the luck factor, draft in an auction instead of a snake draft. Everyone has the same access to all of the same players so it becomes a question of strategy and how much you want every player you go after.
2. FAAB. This is the auction of waiver wires. You get a set number of dollars to spend as bids on the waiver guys. The highest dollar figure is awarded the claim and those dollars are debited from that player's fixed annual budget.
3. Keepers. If you draft well one year you should be rewarded next year. Adding a number of keepers in your league carries your skill from one year into the next allowing the cream to rise to the top.
4. Big Leagues. Go ahead and sign up for a 14, 16, 18, or even 20 team league. There are more competitors so the best ones will be closer to the top. Usually. This isn't a sure-bet, but it helps.
5. Big Benches. More reserves reduces dependency on the waiver wire and ostensibly increases the display of skill in the league.
6. DL Slots. Some leagues don't have a DL at all. Most have one, some have more. I suggest having two DL slots so managers aren't faced with cutting a guy they so expertly picked up just because he is injured.
Any other thoughts? Chime in, we'd love to hear from you.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Semi-Dynasty League
On Saturday we drafted half of the 20-team dynasty league. I say half because there were 232 keepers out of 500 players. There is a $200 auction budget in that league so even with more teams the average dollar figure per player is lower. Every dollar counts.
The average team had $94 to work with and I had $156 which was the second-most in the league. Unfortunately, there weren't many players available who were top-shelf options so I knew I had to let my money fly.
We kicked things off with Hanley Ramirez. Despite his struggles last year he seemed to be easily the bluest chip player available. With all my cash I was determined to pay basically any amount to get him. I figured it would be at least $40. I got him for $42 which in hindsight looks like a steal.
There was some serious inflation going on. Mark Reynolds went for $24, Pablo Sandoval was $35. Later on Allen Craig went for $23 and Sean Marshall was $24.
With Hanley I figured I could spend big on either shortstop or third base since he will be both. I got Derek Jeter for a measly $14. I backed them both up with Mike Aviles for only $7. Ramirez, Jeter, and Aviles for $63 total seems pretty solid.
Jason Kipnis for $17 moves Howard Kendrick to 1B or LF and Ryan Rayburn to the bench. Nice options there. I also decided I had to have one of the 4 high-end options available at right field (this league has specific outfield positions). I got Jason Heyward for $24 which was a little more than I wanted to spend, but I do believe he bounces back this year.
I also wanted a "pure" first baseman and got Adam Lind for $12. We'll see how that goes. I'm not thrilled with it, but it could work out.
This team has an amazing amount of positional flexibility, which is fantastic to have in a 20-team league where options can be slim and replacement level is pretty low. Hanley, Aviles, Rayburn, Kendrick, John Mayberry, and Lucas Duda all play multiple positions.
My pitching is really strong, too. Mostly because of my keepers. I have Javy Guerra and Sergio Santos for $1 apiece. That is tremendous in a 20-team league. I hoped to pick up another closer in the draft, and in hindsight I should have. The $12 I spent on Lind could have gone there. They were going in the $16-$24 range and there were only about 5 or so with jobs.
I got David Hernandez for $2 and called it a day on the relievers. I don't believe that J.J. Putz can stay healthy and Hernandez is the clear alternative.
This league has quality starts as a category in place of wins. Know your league settings, people! In this format I though Bud Norris would be a fantastic pickup. I got him for $13. He slots in with my other starters: Dan Haren, Tim Stauffer, Brandon Morrow, Scott Baker, and Tyson Ross. I feel like that is a strong staff for a 20-team league.
Overall, I really like my squad. I think we can make some noise this year. This team would destroy my roster in my 10-team AL-Only league. No doubt about it.
The average team had $94 to work with and I had $156 which was the second-most in the league. Unfortunately, there weren't many players available who were top-shelf options so I knew I had to let my money fly.
We kicked things off with Hanley Ramirez. Despite his struggles last year he seemed to be easily the bluest chip player available. With all my cash I was determined to pay basically any amount to get him. I figured it would be at least $40. I got him for $42 which in hindsight looks like a steal.
There was some serious inflation going on. Mark Reynolds went for $24, Pablo Sandoval was $35. Later on Allen Craig went for $23 and Sean Marshall was $24.
With Hanley I figured I could spend big on either shortstop or third base since he will be both. I got Derek Jeter for a measly $14. I backed them both up with Mike Aviles for only $7. Ramirez, Jeter, and Aviles for $63 total seems pretty solid.
Jason Kipnis for $17 moves Howard Kendrick to 1B or LF and Ryan Rayburn to the bench. Nice options there. I also decided I had to have one of the 4 high-end options available at right field (this league has specific outfield positions). I got Jason Heyward for $24 which was a little more than I wanted to spend, but I do believe he bounces back this year.
I also wanted a "pure" first baseman and got Adam Lind for $12. We'll see how that goes. I'm not thrilled with it, but it could work out.
This team has an amazing amount of positional flexibility, which is fantastic to have in a 20-team league where options can be slim and replacement level is pretty low. Hanley, Aviles, Rayburn, Kendrick, John Mayberry, and Lucas Duda all play multiple positions.
My pitching is really strong, too. Mostly because of my keepers. I have Javy Guerra and Sergio Santos for $1 apiece. That is tremendous in a 20-team league. I hoped to pick up another closer in the draft, and in hindsight I should have. The $12 I spent on Lind could have gone there. They were going in the $16-$24 range and there were only about 5 or so with jobs.
I got David Hernandez for $2 and called it a day on the relievers. I don't believe that J.J. Putz can stay healthy and Hernandez is the clear alternative.
This league has quality starts as a category in place of wins. Know your league settings, people! In this format I though Bud Norris would be a fantastic pickup. I got him for $13. He slots in with my other starters: Dan Haren, Tim Stauffer, Brandon Morrow, Scott Baker, and Tyson Ross. I feel like that is a strong staff for a 20-team league.
Overall, I really like my squad. I think we can make some noise this year. This team would destroy my roster in my 10-team AL-Only league. No doubt about it.
Expert League Draft
Well, last night was the Expert League draft for the FSIC AL-Only league. First things first, I am honored to be a part of the league and it's going to be a ton of fun.
Now, second things second... CBS' draft software is nowhere close to the quality of ESPN and Yahoo. It is not intuitive, it's buggy, it freezes, and it's very limited in capability. It is so far behind the other two that I want to call it an objective fact and not a subjective opinion, though I suppose by definition it is merely my opinion. So, your mileage may vary. But, if you are forced to draft on CBS please do some mock drafts first.
Let me also say that one of my football leagues is on CBS and I don't mind it nearly as much. It is still well behind ESPN and Yahoo, but I can deal with the football version. And, it has never frozen on me. (And we do that draft in-person with laptops, beer, food, jokes, and good-natured insults. Draft in-person when you can, my friends.)
Okay, one last thing about the software before I tell you about the team. On Saturday I had my 20-team auction draft on Yahoo. I was using two laptops and could have both of them logged in at the same time for instant failover redundancy. Awesome! I tried this with CBS and everything but the chat room froze. Okay, so it just so happened that the commissioner of the league drew pick #1 and someone made a crack about him using all of his time (2 minutes per pick) and us getting started late... So, about 10.5 minutes in my screens are still frozen and because of the crack on the commish I'm thinking that he just hasn't hit the "start" button or something. We're just starting late for some reason, right?
Someone posted in the chat that autodraft means that everyone else is going to be fighting for #2 in the pitching categories. And I'm all like, "Yeah, that's one way to go. LOL."
It was me. My screens were frozen and I didn't know I was up and it timed me out and put me on autodraft. It picked my two wheel picks rapid-fire... So, the #10 and #11 picks for me were Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez. Curses!
Not the end of the world, but I had to change my entire strategy on the fly. For the record, Prince Fielder and Adrian Beltre would have been my picks. I would have then found value with some undervalued starters in the middle rounds.
Later in the draft it was frozen several times. I was not able to select John Danks and ended up with Hector Noesi. I think Noesi will be very good this year, but I like Danks better. I couldn't have him. The software wouldn't let me. I posted the software screwups in chat and totally sounded like sour grapes. It was just so frustrating. I didn't want to sound like sour grapes. I wanted to sound like having-fun-guy-new-guy-just-happy-to-be-here-guy-Dave.
My pitching turned out pretty well: Verlander, Hernandez, Noesi, Wei-Ying Chen, and Tyson Ross plus Greg Holland, Matt Thornton, Aaron Crow, Hisanori Takahashi, and Fautino De Los Santos. I feel like that is a very good staff for an AL-Only league. I like every pitcher that I took, even though I reached on the ones I mentioned above. (Especially Noesi.) I don't think that Broxton will get too many save chances in Kansas City and I think Holland and/or Crow will have that job. The other will still have nice stats. I think Takahashi will produce well and vulture some wins and De Los Santos is the most talented reliever in Oakland. Hopefully he'll win the job. Thornton is the man on the southside. I waited on reliever big time and I feel like I did okay. If I get most of the saves for KC and the ChiSox I should be ahead of the curve.
Hitters. Crap. I am basically all upside hope with this group with big downside risk. This is not the way I'd like to go... I would have liked to have laid a solid foundation with Fielder and Beltre and then add some risky guys in later. I may still have taken Carl Crawford with the first pick of the 6th round, and I would have felt much better about it.
I am relying on Kendrys Morales, Jason Kipnis, Shin-Soo Choo, Erick Aybar, Crawford, and Brett Gardner to carry my team. Every single one of those guys (except maybe Aybar) has more risk than I am comfortable with.
Look, there is room for hope. Morales is supposed to be back to normal. Same with Choo. Aybar is an everyday player on probably the best offense in the AL. And, I love Gardner this year... He's my biggest breakout candidate in the AL, so I'm glad I got him.
I also did the math on outfielders and decided that I had to invest heavily. With 14 teams in the AL there are 42 starting outfielders, plus a handful of guys starting at other positions who qualify for the OF. This is a 10-team league that starts 5 outfielders. They were going to be at a premium. Choo, Gardner, Crawford, Matt Joyce, Nolan Reimold.
All of that said, I'm in big trouble. My corner infielder is Carlos Pena and my catcher is J.P. Arencibia. Fantastic power, but those guys will double-handedly drop my team batting average by 15 or more points. I just had to have the power.
My middle infielder is Yuniesky Betancourt. Yuniesky Betancourt!! Ugh. My utility is a platoon of Wilson Betemit versus righthanders and anyone else when the Orioles face a southpaw. Third base? Lonnie Chisenhall. Starting at third base! What?!
Plus, I drafted Ben Revere. Pretty early, too. He might not have a starting gig since Josh Willingham will be the left fielder. Revere just doesn't have the arm for right field. If he's a starter I like him for 50 steals. If not, I won't ever know when to start him on my team. Curses. C'mon, Brett Gardner!
Okay, so what have we learned? Solid foundation early, invest in outfielders, pitching bargains in the middle rounds, take a few gambles where you have to. Did I do all of that? Errmm... not so much.
We'll play it out and see how it goes. I feel like I'm a decent in-season manager, so we'll see if I can navigate around some of the other experts. A tall order, that.
Big props go out to Jesse Sakstrup of Roto Summit (http://www.rotosummit.com). His team is terrific. Robinson Cano (who I would have taken #1 overall), Adrian Beltre, Asdrubal Cabrera, Dustin Ackley, Mark Reynolds (good value)... John Danks, James Shields, Grant Balfour, Mike Adams (will get the job before long), Vinnie Pestano (might not give the job up). It's a quality team.
There are a few other good teams in the league. I like Jessica and Timothy Polko's team. They are from RotoHelp (http://www.rotohelp.com/). Their corners: Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, Edwin Encarnacion, and Billy Butler. Very nice. They couldn't have dreamed of getting Fielder in the middle of the 2nd round.
I'm in for some stiff competition.
My team might have the most upside in the whole league, though. And the most downside. We'll see.
Now, second things second... CBS' draft software is nowhere close to the quality of ESPN and Yahoo. It is not intuitive, it's buggy, it freezes, and it's very limited in capability. It is so far behind the other two that I want to call it an objective fact and not a subjective opinion, though I suppose by definition it is merely my opinion. So, your mileage may vary. But, if you are forced to draft on CBS please do some mock drafts first.
Let me also say that one of my football leagues is on CBS and I don't mind it nearly as much. It is still well behind ESPN and Yahoo, but I can deal with the football version. And, it has never frozen on me. (And we do that draft in-person with laptops, beer, food, jokes, and good-natured insults. Draft in-person when you can, my friends.)
Okay, one last thing about the software before I tell you about the team. On Saturday I had my 20-team auction draft on Yahoo. I was using two laptops and could have both of them logged in at the same time for instant failover redundancy. Awesome! I tried this with CBS and everything but the chat room froze. Okay, so it just so happened that the commissioner of the league drew pick #1 and someone made a crack about him using all of his time (2 minutes per pick) and us getting started late... So, about 10.5 minutes in my screens are still frozen and because of the crack on the commish I'm thinking that he just hasn't hit the "start" button or something. We're just starting late for some reason, right?
Someone posted in the chat that autodraft means that everyone else is going to be fighting for #2 in the pitching categories. And I'm all like, "Yeah, that's one way to go. LOL."
It was me. My screens were frozen and I didn't know I was up and it timed me out and put me on autodraft. It picked my two wheel picks rapid-fire... So, the #10 and #11 picks for me were Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez. Curses!
Not the end of the world, but I had to change my entire strategy on the fly. For the record, Prince Fielder and Adrian Beltre would have been my picks. I would have then found value with some undervalued starters in the middle rounds.
Later in the draft it was frozen several times. I was not able to select John Danks and ended up with Hector Noesi. I think Noesi will be very good this year, but I like Danks better. I couldn't have him. The software wouldn't let me. I posted the software screwups in chat and totally sounded like sour grapes. It was just so frustrating. I didn't want to sound like sour grapes. I wanted to sound like having-fun-guy-new-guy-just-happy-to-be-here-guy-Dave.
My pitching turned out pretty well: Verlander, Hernandez, Noesi, Wei-Ying Chen, and Tyson Ross plus Greg Holland, Matt Thornton, Aaron Crow, Hisanori Takahashi, and Fautino De Los Santos. I feel like that is a very good staff for an AL-Only league. I like every pitcher that I took, even though I reached on the ones I mentioned above. (Especially Noesi.) I don't think that Broxton will get too many save chances in Kansas City and I think Holland and/or Crow will have that job. The other will still have nice stats. I think Takahashi will produce well and vulture some wins and De Los Santos is the most talented reliever in Oakland. Hopefully he'll win the job. Thornton is the man on the southside. I waited on reliever big time and I feel like I did okay. If I get most of the saves for KC and the ChiSox I should be ahead of the curve.
Hitters. Crap. I am basically all upside hope with this group with big downside risk. This is not the way I'd like to go... I would have liked to have laid a solid foundation with Fielder and Beltre and then add some risky guys in later. I may still have taken Carl Crawford with the first pick of the 6th round, and I would have felt much better about it.
I am relying on Kendrys Morales, Jason Kipnis, Shin-Soo Choo, Erick Aybar, Crawford, and Brett Gardner to carry my team. Every single one of those guys (except maybe Aybar) has more risk than I am comfortable with.
Look, there is room for hope. Morales is supposed to be back to normal. Same with Choo. Aybar is an everyday player on probably the best offense in the AL. And, I love Gardner this year... He's my biggest breakout candidate in the AL, so I'm glad I got him.
I also did the math on outfielders and decided that I had to invest heavily. With 14 teams in the AL there are 42 starting outfielders, plus a handful of guys starting at other positions who qualify for the OF. This is a 10-team league that starts 5 outfielders. They were going to be at a premium. Choo, Gardner, Crawford, Matt Joyce, Nolan Reimold.
All of that said, I'm in big trouble. My corner infielder is Carlos Pena and my catcher is J.P. Arencibia. Fantastic power, but those guys will double-handedly drop my team batting average by 15 or more points. I just had to have the power.
My middle infielder is Yuniesky Betancourt. Yuniesky Betancourt!! Ugh. My utility is a platoon of Wilson Betemit versus righthanders and anyone else when the Orioles face a southpaw. Third base? Lonnie Chisenhall. Starting at third base! What?!
Plus, I drafted Ben Revere. Pretty early, too. He might not have a starting gig since Josh Willingham will be the left fielder. Revere just doesn't have the arm for right field. If he's a starter I like him for 50 steals. If not, I won't ever know when to start him on my team. Curses. C'mon, Brett Gardner!
Okay, so what have we learned? Solid foundation early, invest in outfielders, pitching bargains in the middle rounds, take a few gambles where you have to. Did I do all of that? Errmm... not so much.
We'll play it out and see how it goes. I feel like I'm a decent in-season manager, so we'll see if I can navigate around some of the other experts. A tall order, that.
Big props go out to Jesse Sakstrup of Roto Summit (http://www.rotosummit.com). His team is terrific. Robinson Cano (who I would have taken #1 overall), Adrian Beltre, Asdrubal Cabrera, Dustin Ackley, Mark Reynolds (good value)... John Danks, James Shields, Grant Balfour, Mike Adams (will get the job before long), Vinnie Pestano (might not give the job up). It's a quality team.
There are a few other good teams in the league. I like Jessica and Timothy Polko's team. They are from RotoHelp (http://www.rotohelp.com/). Their corners: Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, Edwin Encarnacion, and Billy Butler. Very nice. They couldn't have dreamed of getting Fielder in the middle of the 2nd round.
I'm in for some stiff competition.
My team might have the most upside in the whole league, though. And the most downside. We'll see.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Draft Week!
Four drafts in the next 8 days! Can't wait to get started tomorrow...
My leagues, for the record:
Tomorrow:
20-Team Semi-Dynasty League:
5x5 (w/ QS in lieu of Wins), Mixed, Auction ($200 budget), 10 keepers, 3 minor leaguers, Roto
Sunday:
FSIC Expert League:
11 Teams, 5x5, AL-Only, Snake, Roto
Tuesday:
BlogTalk Radio Podcast League:
14 Teams, 5x5, Mixed, Snake, Roto
Next Saturday:
My Friends League:
12 Teams, 5x5, Mixed, Auction ($260), 3 keepers, Roto
So, no head-to-head leagues, no public leagues, and no 10-team leagues. For several years I've limited myself to just 4 leagues. Some people can't understand why so many, but the hardcore fantasy players might be asking the exact opposite. Why so few? Hmm, well I ask myself that as well. I'd love to be in 8-10 leagues if I could, but there is really a diminishing rate of return and I find that after 4 leagues I lose focus and it becomes more work than fun. And, it's even less fun when you are losing. I should be able to stay competitive with 4, but I'll keep you posted as we go with strategic insights that can help you (not just to talk about my leagues... I am here to help, after all).
I'll post draft results all next week and give you some ideas of where I did well and where I went wrong. It might be too late to help you in your drafts this year, but around here we are all about evolving into a better fantasy player. So, let's compare notes and get incrementally better. If you begin to think more critically about your baseball drafts it can have value for you in the Fall with your football drafts. And we'll come back even stronger next Spring too.
I anticipate that the FSIC Expert League will be the biggest challenge, but that is primarily because it is an 11-team AL-Only league. That, and the competitors are all people who create fantasy baseball content, so they'll know what they are talking about. Should be a good time.
The Podcast League has at least 5 experts in it as well, so that will be a semi-expert league of sorts. Should be lots of fun.
The 20-teamer is very interesting. I made a strategic error in the inaugural season that I'd like to share with you. That league has $4,000 ($200 budget for 20 teams) chasing 500 players (25-man roster) for an $8 average per player. The typical 23-man roster league has 12 teams and a $260 budget, so you'd be looking at $3,120 chasing 276 players for an average of over $11 per player. My thinking, therefore, was that if I spent on second and third tier players I could scoop up tons of players in the $10-$15 range and have a great roster from top to bottom, which would give me a great advantage over the long haul in this huge 20-team league. Plus, that would give me great trade fodder and keepers next year.
When the league started I saw all of the studs going for standard 12-team cheatsheet pricing, if not more. I was licking my chops... all of those second tier guys would be even cheaper because no one had any money left! So, after about 45 players were off the board I started bidding. I hit on a few: Howard Kendrick for $7, Dan Haren for $13, Jaime Garcia for $7, Pablo Sandoval for $17... but I also missed on a few, like Rajai Davis for $14 and Kendrys Morales for $20. My pitching was exceptional early on and I led the league for about 8 weeks, but then I started the long, slow fade. I finished in 9th place, which I suppose isn't terrible in a 20-team league, but the primary reason is that most of my competitors were buoyed up by a couple of high-priced studs. I just didn't have a stable foundation.
So this year, after the 10 keepers, the average auction money left is $94 per team. With all of my low-cost moves I've got $156 to spend, which is second-most in the league. The problem is that there just aren't a lot of studs available since most teams kept theirs... another thing I didn't expect. I'm going to have to over-spend for guys like Hanley Ramirez, A-Rod, and Carl Crawford. Studs who were thrown back for good reason. Ugh. The problem is that if I don't I will be spending big money on guys like Mark Trumbo and Alexei Ramirez. Pickings are slim, so I'm going to let the dollars fly.
Here's to hoping that I don't have to spend $32 on Mark Reynolds.
My leagues, for the record:
Tomorrow:
20-Team Semi-Dynasty League:
5x5 (w/ QS in lieu of Wins), Mixed, Auction ($200 budget), 10 keepers, 3 minor leaguers, Roto
Sunday:
FSIC Expert League:
11 Teams, 5x5, AL-Only, Snake, Roto
Tuesday:
BlogTalk Radio Podcast League:
14 Teams, 5x5, Mixed, Snake, Roto
Next Saturday:
My Friends League:
12 Teams, 5x5, Mixed, Auction ($260), 3 keepers, Roto
So, no head-to-head leagues, no public leagues, and no 10-team leagues. For several years I've limited myself to just 4 leagues. Some people can't understand why so many, but the hardcore fantasy players might be asking the exact opposite. Why so few? Hmm, well I ask myself that as well. I'd love to be in 8-10 leagues if I could, but there is really a diminishing rate of return and I find that after 4 leagues I lose focus and it becomes more work than fun. And, it's even less fun when you are losing. I should be able to stay competitive with 4, but I'll keep you posted as we go with strategic insights that can help you (not just to talk about my leagues... I am here to help, after all).
I'll post draft results all next week and give you some ideas of where I did well and where I went wrong. It might be too late to help you in your drafts this year, but around here we are all about evolving into a better fantasy player. So, let's compare notes and get incrementally better. If you begin to think more critically about your baseball drafts it can have value for you in the Fall with your football drafts. And we'll come back even stronger next Spring too.
I anticipate that the FSIC Expert League will be the biggest challenge, but that is primarily because it is an 11-team AL-Only league. That, and the competitors are all people who create fantasy baseball content, so they'll know what they are talking about. Should be a good time.
The Podcast League has at least 5 experts in it as well, so that will be a semi-expert league of sorts. Should be lots of fun.
The 20-teamer is very interesting. I made a strategic error in the inaugural season that I'd like to share with you. That league has $4,000 ($200 budget for 20 teams) chasing 500 players (25-man roster) for an $8 average per player. The typical 23-man roster league has 12 teams and a $260 budget, so you'd be looking at $3,120 chasing 276 players for an average of over $11 per player. My thinking, therefore, was that if I spent on second and third tier players I could scoop up tons of players in the $10-$15 range and have a great roster from top to bottom, which would give me a great advantage over the long haul in this huge 20-team league. Plus, that would give me great trade fodder and keepers next year.
When the league started I saw all of the studs going for standard 12-team cheatsheet pricing, if not more. I was licking my chops... all of those second tier guys would be even cheaper because no one had any money left! So, after about 45 players were off the board I started bidding. I hit on a few: Howard Kendrick for $7, Dan Haren for $13, Jaime Garcia for $7, Pablo Sandoval for $17... but I also missed on a few, like Rajai Davis for $14 and Kendrys Morales for $20. My pitching was exceptional early on and I led the league for about 8 weeks, but then I started the long, slow fade. I finished in 9th place, which I suppose isn't terrible in a 20-team league, but the primary reason is that most of my competitors were buoyed up by a couple of high-priced studs. I just didn't have a stable foundation.
So this year, after the 10 keepers, the average auction money left is $94 per team. With all of my low-cost moves I've got $156 to spend, which is second-most in the league. The problem is that there just aren't a lot of studs available since most teams kept theirs... another thing I didn't expect. I'm going to have to over-spend for guys like Hanley Ramirez, A-Rod, and Carl Crawford. Studs who were thrown back for good reason. Ugh. The problem is that if I don't I will be spending big money on guys like Mark Trumbo and Alexei Ramirez. Pickings are slim, so I'm going to let the dollars fly.
Here's to hoping that I don't have to spend $32 on Mark Reynolds.
March Madness
Every year in March a certain madness sweeps the nation. What is this madness, you ask? Fantasy baseball draft prep, that's what! That, and basketball. Do the two have anything in common? Read on, my friend.
Everyone who has ever filled out a bracket knows that you can't pick all of the favorites, you've got to go with some upsets here and there. The prognosticators that pick the proper upsets win their brackets. The folks who draw chalk do okay, but end up around the 30th percentile or so.
In your fantasy drafts there will often be some people who cannot attend for one reason or another and the computer takes the best available player for them. This is a sure-fire way to finish in the middle of the pack... say, 5th or 6th in a 12-team league. If you are used to finishing very low in your leagues, this may actually be a viable one-time strategy for you. Assuming, of course, that you don't mind knowing that you won't finish in the money from the beginning.
But why do some people routinely finish very low in the standings? They put their money on the wrong horses, over and over again. The opposite is true, of course, for the great fantasy managers who often finish in the money. They pick the right upsets.
I have written previously about the bit of conventional wisdom that says: "You can't win your league in the first round but that you can lose it." To some extent, I believe this is true. In a snake draft, take players with the highest floor as possible with your first four picks. You want to lay the foundation with guys who are reliable. At that point, rely on your research to direct you to the most likely upsets. Use the techniques and strategies written about here to uncover the gems in the middle rounds.
I advocate a mix of solid, stable assets in conjunction with at least 20% high-upside breakout candidates. As discussed previously, your typical breakout candidates are going to be players who:
Pick the right upsets, my friend, and they'll never see you coming.
Everyone who has ever filled out a bracket knows that you can't pick all of the favorites, you've got to go with some upsets here and there. The prognosticators that pick the proper upsets win their brackets. The folks who draw chalk do okay, but end up around the 30th percentile or so.
In your fantasy drafts there will often be some people who cannot attend for one reason or another and the computer takes the best available player for them. This is a sure-fire way to finish in the middle of the pack... say, 5th or 6th in a 12-team league. If you are used to finishing very low in your leagues, this may actually be a viable one-time strategy for you. Assuming, of course, that you don't mind knowing that you won't finish in the money from the beginning.
But why do some people routinely finish very low in the standings? They put their money on the wrong horses, over and over again. The opposite is true, of course, for the great fantasy managers who often finish in the money. They pick the right upsets.
I have written previously about the bit of conventional wisdom that says: "You can't win your league in the first round but that you can lose it." To some extent, I believe this is true. In a snake draft, take players with the highest floor as possible with your first four picks. You want to lay the foundation with guys who are reliable. At that point, rely on your research to direct you to the most likely upsets. Use the techniques and strategies written about here to uncover the gems in the middle rounds.
I advocate a mix of solid, stable assets in conjunction with at least 20% high-upside breakout candidates. As discussed previously, your typical breakout candidates are going to be players who:
- Have no playing time concerns.
- Have a solid pedigree (as amateur, draft pick, minors, etc.).
- Have shown an ability to hang in the big leagues.
- Are entering their prime.
Pick the right upsets, my friend, and they'll never see you coming.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Stacking Scarcity
Interesting topic today, folks. The concept for today's post has to do with stacking scarcity. We have spoken about position scarcity in this space before... The value of thinking about scarcity and also the pitfalls. Today, what happens to your team if you grab two of the few studs at one position that is scarce?
I will primarily be talking about baseball with this one, but you can apply it to running backs in a primary-back setup too. (That is to say, there aren't many teams that have the one bell cow running back so if you can grab two or three of them that would be equivalent to what we are discussing here.)
It goes like this: Let's say there are three verifiable studs at one position followed by a massive dropoff. Perhaps we're talking about shortstop this year with Troy Tulowitzki, Jose Reyes, and Hanley Ramirez. I have seen Starlin Castro and Dee Gordon ranked fairly high here and there, but let's say for the sake of argument that this year those guys are ranked way behind the big three. Probably because of a lack of track record. By the way, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this but let's use it as our example.
Okay, what happens if you take Tulo in round one and follow that up with Ramirez in round two?
A few things happen. First, the downside. A big part of why those guys are ranked so high is positional scarcity. People want to get one of the few studs so they don't have a competitive disadvantage. When you already have Tulo the value of Hanley to your specific squad plummets.
However, there is a significant upside here. What you have done with your selection of Ramirez is to prevent everyone except the player who drafts Reyes from competing with you at shortstop. You have locked in a significant competitive advantage. The other players in your league are taking first basemen, outfielders, second basemen, and starting pitchers in the first two rounds. You? You grabbed the top two shortstops on the board and cemented an advantage.
Winning fantasy sports managers can break down their rosters into mini-competitions. Dominant at SS, above average in the OF, top 3 at 1B, need help at starting pitcher... etc.
Stacking scarcity also gives you a chance to possibly trade one later in the year. This is not unlike the post I made on closers called The Rhombus. Give yourself something to work with. And, listen, stud shortstops don't typically materialize mid-year. Closers and starters do every year and there are always one or two first basemen and more than a handful of outfielders. Shortstops? Hardly.
In our example you will be able to play Hanley at third base, but that won't typically be the case. If you play in a league with corner infielders and middle infielders, you're all set. Hanley is your MI. If not, you're looking at your second shortstop in your utility spot, which may not be ideal. Many of your leaguemates will be plugging in a second first baseman or DH in the utility role and will certainly rack up better power numbers than you.
This, again, is something you can exploit. If you have a middle infielder as your utility you may want to shy away from home runs and RBI and try to focus on batting average, runs, and steals. Given that choice it is three categories versus two anyway, so it's a no-brainer.
That said, certainly do not punt a category. Never punt a category. If you have a stud middle infielder in your utility slot, aim for the middle of the pack in HR and RBI and for the top of the charts everywhere else.
It is a viable strategy that can pay off for you if used properly.
I will primarily be talking about baseball with this one, but you can apply it to running backs in a primary-back setup too. (That is to say, there aren't many teams that have the one bell cow running back so if you can grab two or three of them that would be equivalent to what we are discussing here.)
It goes like this: Let's say there are three verifiable studs at one position followed by a massive dropoff. Perhaps we're talking about shortstop this year with Troy Tulowitzki, Jose Reyes, and Hanley Ramirez. I have seen Starlin Castro and Dee Gordon ranked fairly high here and there, but let's say for the sake of argument that this year those guys are ranked way behind the big three. Probably because of a lack of track record. By the way, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this but let's use it as our example.
Okay, what happens if you take Tulo in round one and follow that up with Ramirez in round two?
A few things happen. First, the downside. A big part of why those guys are ranked so high is positional scarcity. People want to get one of the few studs so they don't have a competitive disadvantage. When you already have Tulo the value of Hanley to your specific squad plummets.
However, there is a significant upside here. What you have done with your selection of Ramirez is to prevent everyone except the player who drafts Reyes from competing with you at shortstop. You have locked in a significant competitive advantage. The other players in your league are taking first basemen, outfielders, second basemen, and starting pitchers in the first two rounds. You? You grabbed the top two shortstops on the board and cemented an advantage.
Winning fantasy sports managers can break down their rosters into mini-competitions. Dominant at SS, above average in the OF, top 3 at 1B, need help at starting pitcher... etc.
Stacking scarcity also gives you a chance to possibly trade one later in the year. This is not unlike the post I made on closers called The Rhombus. Give yourself something to work with. And, listen, stud shortstops don't typically materialize mid-year. Closers and starters do every year and there are always one or two first basemen and more than a handful of outfielders. Shortstops? Hardly.
In our example you will be able to play Hanley at third base, but that won't typically be the case. If you play in a league with corner infielders and middle infielders, you're all set. Hanley is your MI. If not, you're looking at your second shortstop in your utility spot, which may not be ideal. Many of your leaguemates will be plugging in a second first baseman or DH in the utility role and will certainly rack up better power numbers than you.
This, again, is something you can exploit. If you have a middle infielder as your utility you may want to shy away from home runs and RBI and try to focus on batting average, runs, and steals. Given that choice it is three categories versus two anyway, so it's a no-brainer.
That said, certainly do not punt a category. Never punt a category. If you have a stud middle infielder in your utility slot, aim for the middle of the pack in HR and RBI and for the top of the charts everywhere else.
It is a viable strategy that can pay off for you if used properly.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
3 for 1 Trades
Did you know that you can work a trade where you land more assets in the deal and still lose? You absolutely can... Allow me to explain.
First and foremost, this is a common belief but I'll do my best to put my own personal spin on it. The belief is that if you get the best player in the deal you almost always win. A lot of 3-for-1 trades would include three guys who are, say, a 6 on a 10-point scale in exchange for one player who is an 8.
Let's say for a moment that a replacement level player is about a 4 on our 10-point scale. It would stand to reason that the fantasy manager getting the three 6's would win the deal, right? I mean, they now have three players significantly above average and they only weakened themselves in one spot. That may be true, but the impact of the best player in this deal is bigger than just the incremental gain. There is a competitive advantage over your adversaries that does not follow a linear path along with the value of the player. In other words, a guy who is a 6 gives you a small advantage over replacement level (a 4 on our scale) but a guy who is an 8 gives you well more than double the advantage. The reason is scarcity. Very few of your leaguemates will have an 8 at that position, but you gotta figure that most everyone has a 5 or 6 just about everywhere.
Let us define "replacement level" for a moment. Simply stated, if one of the guys on your roster goes down for the season with an injury who can you grab from the waiver wire to plug in for free? That's replacement level. It may not be a bad player in real life, either. In a typical 10 or 12 team mixed league the replacement level guy is going to be an established everyday player of pretty decent real-life quality.
A couple more thoughts about our 3-for-1 deal. You may be the one to give up the 1 for the 3 under a couple of different circumstances. If you have a couple of big injuries, you may need some fill-in's that are better than replacement level. Trading an 8 plus the opportunity cost (if you can call it that) of a couple of 4's equates to 16, if you follow the logic. Three 6's is 18. As I mentioned earlier, the 8 is exponentially more valuable, but if you have a couple of injuries you may have to do what you have to do. Especially if you don't even like the options on the waiver wire and you think maybe one of those 6's will perform like a 7... It could be a win for you. When trying to work a deal like this, target a team owner who has depth at the position you need. For example, last year in baseball it is completely possible that the guy with Troy Tulowitzki also had Starlin Castro. Targeting one of those two would have been a great way to go.
It is also possible that you just don't believe that your 8 really is an 8. He's playing over his head and now is the time to sell high. Could be.
You can always play the favorite team card, too. Make sure you know who the folks in your league root for and try to deal players from those teams to their associated fans. Most fantasy players, even entry-level ones, know enough not to over-value the players from the teams they love. However, most fantasy players, even experts, have a soft spot in their heart for their favorites and will value them just a little bit more than players from other teams. Use this to your advantage. The Red Sox fan is going to want to trade for Dustin Pedroia and might give you just a little extra in a deal.
Good luck in your drafts, my friends. The next couple of weeks should be busy.
First and foremost, this is a common belief but I'll do my best to put my own personal spin on it. The belief is that if you get the best player in the deal you almost always win. A lot of 3-for-1 trades would include three guys who are, say, a 6 on a 10-point scale in exchange for one player who is an 8.
Let's say for a moment that a replacement level player is about a 4 on our 10-point scale. It would stand to reason that the fantasy manager getting the three 6's would win the deal, right? I mean, they now have three players significantly above average and they only weakened themselves in one spot. That may be true, but the impact of the best player in this deal is bigger than just the incremental gain. There is a competitive advantage over your adversaries that does not follow a linear path along with the value of the player. In other words, a guy who is a 6 gives you a small advantage over replacement level (a 4 on our scale) but a guy who is an 8 gives you well more than double the advantage. The reason is scarcity. Very few of your leaguemates will have an 8 at that position, but you gotta figure that most everyone has a 5 or 6 just about everywhere.
Let us define "replacement level" for a moment. Simply stated, if one of the guys on your roster goes down for the season with an injury who can you grab from the waiver wire to plug in for free? That's replacement level. It may not be a bad player in real life, either. In a typical 10 or 12 team mixed league the replacement level guy is going to be an established everyday player of pretty decent real-life quality.
A couple more thoughts about our 3-for-1 deal. You may be the one to give up the 1 for the 3 under a couple of different circumstances. If you have a couple of big injuries, you may need some fill-in's that are better than replacement level. Trading an 8 plus the opportunity cost (if you can call it that) of a couple of 4's equates to 16, if you follow the logic. Three 6's is 18. As I mentioned earlier, the 8 is exponentially more valuable, but if you have a couple of injuries you may have to do what you have to do. Especially if you don't even like the options on the waiver wire and you think maybe one of those 6's will perform like a 7... It could be a win for you. When trying to work a deal like this, target a team owner who has depth at the position you need. For example, last year in baseball it is completely possible that the guy with Troy Tulowitzki also had Starlin Castro. Targeting one of those two would have been a great way to go.
It is also possible that you just don't believe that your 8 really is an 8. He's playing over his head and now is the time to sell high. Could be.
You can always play the favorite team card, too. Make sure you know who the folks in your league root for and try to deal players from those teams to their associated fans. Most fantasy players, even entry-level ones, know enough not to over-value the players from the teams they love. However, most fantasy players, even experts, have a soft spot in their heart for their favorites and will value them just a little bit more than players from other teams. Use this to your advantage. The Red Sox fan is going to want to trade for Dustin Pedroia and might give you just a little extra in a deal.
Good luck in your drafts, my friends. The next couple of weeks should be busy.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Socrateams
Today I want to talk about the internal philosophies of individual sports franchises. Hang with me, folks... there will be a payoff. In ancient Greece there were many great philosphers, and one of the most famous is Socrates. Socrates was credited with the creation of the somewhat eponymously-named "Socratic Method."
When you really boil it down, the socratic method is a series of questions and answers that help a person or group of people to narrow down what they truly believe and what is really important to them. This sort of questioning must be very thoughtful to be of value, and great organizations engage in it all of the time. Even sports teams.
The teams that jump immediately to mind are the Minnesota Twins and the Pittsburgh Steelers. I feel like these are just a couple of organizations that have genuinely questioned their goals and tactics over time to determine their focus and chart a path forward.
First the Twins. When you think of Twins hitters what do you think of? Batting titles. Rod Carew. Kirby Puckett. Joe Mauer. There is an internal philosophy in the Twin Cities that has been developed internally over time, intentionally. They knowingly and purposefully suppress their own players' power hitting skills in favor of spraying line drives to all fields. It works for them.
I contend that players that are raised by the Twins routinely hit for a higher average and lower power numbers than with other teams. One of their best power hitters was Kent Hrbek, but even he only amassed 293 home runs in 14 seasons. His lifetime batting average? A more than respectable .282. What about Puckett? 207 dingers and a fantastic .318 average. What do you think would have happen to these guys if they spent their careers as White Sox or Rangers? I suspect that if Hrbek had been a southsider for 14 years he would have been right around 500 homers with a lifetime batting average down around .260 or so. Heck, that would have made him a borderline hall of famer.
But let's bring it to the current day. What should you expect from Joe Mauer, coming back (once again) from injury? My prediction: 7 home runs and a .325 average.
What can we expect from someone like Michael Cuddyer? Here's the payoff... Cuddyer came to the Twins as a very high draft pick with tons of potential. We saw a glimpse of his power potential in 2009 when he smacked 32 homers, but in over 4,000 MLB at bats he only has 141. My guess is that his lifetime average of .272 will drop sharply but his home runs-to-at bat ratio will go up dramatically in Colorado. How about 38 homers and a .252 average? If he does that he's a great value on draft day.
Further evidence of this reality is the career of J.J. Hardy. In Milwaukee he hit for power. When he went to Minnesota he was instructed to hit line drives the opposite way. When he got to Baltimore in 2011 he was doing his Minnesota Twins line drive thing in spring training when the hitting instructor asked him to cut that stuff out and start driving the ball for power. The result? A career high 30 home runs. Great value in 2011 and another value still in 2012.
Okay, I'm running long but let's say a quick word about the gridiron. There are reasons why the Steeler defense is always a good bet. Even when you think they may be aging or ready for a down year, they always have guys step up. It's hard to get this defense as a draft day value, but you can usually grab them with confidence that they will deliver.
I would encourage you to think critically about whether there are any guiding principles that direct a given team internally. This can especially affect how free agents act or react coming from the organization or beginning their time within the organization. There are value opportunities there for you.
When you really boil it down, the socratic method is a series of questions and answers that help a person or group of people to narrow down what they truly believe and what is really important to them. This sort of questioning must be very thoughtful to be of value, and great organizations engage in it all of the time. Even sports teams.
The teams that jump immediately to mind are the Minnesota Twins and the Pittsburgh Steelers. I feel like these are just a couple of organizations that have genuinely questioned their goals and tactics over time to determine their focus and chart a path forward.
First the Twins. When you think of Twins hitters what do you think of? Batting titles. Rod Carew. Kirby Puckett. Joe Mauer. There is an internal philosophy in the Twin Cities that has been developed internally over time, intentionally. They knowingly and purposefully suppress their own players' power hitting skills in favor of spraying line drives to all fields. It works for them.
I contend that players that are raised by the Twins routinely hit for a higher average and lower power numbers than with other teams. One of their best power hitters was Kent Hrbek, but even he only amassed 293 home runs in 14 seasons. His lifetime batting average? A more than respectable .282. What about Puckett? 207 dingers and a fantastic .318 average. What do you think would have happen to these guys if they spent their careers as White Sox or Rangers? I suspect that if Hrbek had been a southsider for 14 years he would have been right around 500 homers with a lifetime batting average down around .260 or so. Heck, that would have made him a borderline hall of famer.
But let's bring it to the current day. What should you expect from Joe Mauer, coming back (once again) from injury? My prediction: 7 home runs and a .325 average.
What can we expect from someone like Michael Cuddyer? Here's the payoff... Cuddyer came to the Twins as a very high draft pick with tons of potential. We saw a glimpse of his power potential in 2009 when he smacked 32 homers, but in over 4,000 MLB at bats he only has 141. My guess is that his lifetime average of .272 will drop sharply but his home runs-to-at bat ratio will go up dramatically in Colorado. How about 38 homers and a .252 average? If he does that he's a great value on draft day.
Further evidence of this reality is the career of J.J. Hardy. In Milwaukee he hit for power. When he went to Minnesota he was instructed to hit line drives the opposite way. When he got to Baltimore in 2011 he was doing his Minnesota Twins line drive thing in spring training when the hitting instructor asked him to cut that stuff out and start driving the ball for power. The result? A career high 30 home runs. Great value in 2011 and another value still in 2012.
Okay, I'm running long but let's say a quick word about the gridiron. There are reasons why the Steeler defense is always a good bet. Even when you think they may be aging or ready for a down year, they always have guys step up. It's hard to get this defense as a draft day value, but you can usually grab them with confidence that they will deliver.
I would encourage you to think critically about whether there are any guiding principles that direct a given team internally. This can especially affect how free agents act or react coming from the organization or beginning their time within the organization. There are value opportunities there for you.
Friday, March 16, 2012
FSIC Expert League
I have been invited to participate in the FSIC AL-Only Experts League. I am humbled by the invitation and look forward to matching wits with some of the greatest fantasy baseball minds in the world.
In the past this league has had participants from The Sporting News, Fanball, and Razzball just to name a few. The competition should be fierce and give me a chance to make a name for myself.
Keep watching this space for updates on the league... the draft, my pickups, and strategic thinking as the year unfolds.
In the past this league has had participants from The Sporting News, Fanball, and Razzball just to name a few. The competition should be fierce and give me a chance to make a name for myself.
Keep watching this space for updates on the league... the draft, my pickups, and strategic thinking as the year unfolds.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Are you 'hurt' or 'injured'?
Rub some dirt on it, kid.
Are you "injured" ...or just "hurt"?
What's the difference? In fantasy, it's a big difference. Today I'd like to talk about the value of what I call "quantifiable unavailability." In other words, how much time is a player likely to be injured and either placed on the DL in baseball or labeled "out" or at least "doubtful" in football. That, instead of this in and out of the lineup nonsense.
The in and out of the lineup guys are to be avoided at all costs.
There are tons of players that have been marked 'injury prone' and the reality is that most of the time it is justified. And, most of the time they are avoided in drafts by your competitors. This is a market inefficiency that can be exploited.
Here is the rationale. Let's take a guy like Nelson Cruz - highly talented, very productive, and always misses a quarter of the season. I would humbly submit that these guys are great bargains in most drafts. Most people think that is risky at best and crazy at worst.
The key here is that with some injury prone guys, you know that they will spend time on the DL or be labeled "out." That is vastly better than not knowing because you can be prepared to slide in the best available replacement.
Let's say Nelson Cruz slips to the 6th or 7th round. What other outfielders is he competing with for your attention at that point in the draft? Guys that aren't as talented as him, for sure. Why did he slip? Because he'll miss 40 games this year, that's why. He always does. If he was going to play all 162 he would be a 2nd round pick.
Personally, I'll take 120-ish games of a 2nd rounder for a 6th round cost plus another 40 games of a replacement level guy. (Nolan Reimold, anyone?) Especially at a position like outfielder, starting pitcher, or wide receiver... where there are more likely to be new options emerging as the year develops.
The real trick here is determining which guys have nagging injuries that mess with their playing time and which ones will be out for defined periods of time. "Quantifiable unavailability."
Last thing on this... This is a little better of a better strategy in head-to-head leagues than roto. The reason is that when your injury prone guy is available to you he'll help you win your matchup. When he's not, he's not... but you will know it.
So, kid, are you injured? ...or just hurt?
Are you "injured" ...or just "hurt"?
What's the difference? In fantasy, it's a big difference. Today I'd like to talk about the value of what I call "quantifiable unavailability." In other words, how much time is a player likely to be injured and either placed on the DL in baseball or labeled "out" or at least "doubtful" in football. That, instead of this in and out of the lineup nonsense.
The in and out of the lineup guys are to be avoided at all costs.
There are tons of players that have been marked 'injury prone' and the reality is that most of the time it is justified. And, most of the time they are avoided in drafts by your competitors. This is a market inefficiency that can be exploited.
Here is the rationale. Let's take a guy like Nelson Cruz - highly talented, very productive, and always misses a quarter of the season. I would humbly submit that these guys are great bargains in most drafts. Most people think that is risky at best and crazy at worst.
The key here is that with some injury prone guys, you know that they will spend time on the DL or be labeled "out." That is vastly better than not knowing because you can be prepared to slide in the best available replacement.
Let's say Nelson Cruz slips to the 6th or 7th round. What other outfielders is he competing with for your attention at that point in the draft? Guys that aren't as talented as him, for sure. Why did he slip? Because he'll miss 40 games this year, that's why. He always does. If he was going to play all 162 he would be a 2nd round pick.
Personally, I'll take 120-ish games of a 2nd rounder for a 6th round cost plus another 40 games of a replacement level guy. (Nolan Reimold, anyone?) Especially at a position like outfielder, starting pitcher, or wide receiver... where there are more likely to be new options emerging as the year develops.
The real trick here is determining which guys have nagging injuries that mess with their playing time and which ones will be out for defined periods of time. "Quantifiable unavailability."
Last thing on this... This is a little better of a better strategy in head-to-head leagues than roto. The reason is that when your injury prone guy is available to you he'll help you win your matchup. When he's not, he's not... but you will know it.
So, kid, are you injured? ...or just hurt?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Keeper Question: ____ in the 5th or ____ in the 18th?
So it would appear that I am almost always opposed to the experts on websites, blogs, and podcasts in one particular area. It is a common question about keeper picks that often goes something like this: "Dear Mr. Fantasy Expert, Should I keep Curtis Granderson in the 5th round or Brett Gardner in the 18th?" The other variation, for auction drafts might be, "Hi Fantasy Guru, Who should I keep? Larry Fitzgerald for $24 or Mario Manningham for $1?"
A lot of leagues don't have keeper picks and many of the ones that do have different rules about what you have to give up for the keeper, if anything. I hope there is something in this post for everyone, but if you don't have a quandary like the one in the first paragraph it probably won't be as helpful for you. I invite you to keep reading either way.
When faced with the sorts of questions outlined at the top, I find that the experts almost always pick the better player. Not the better value, the better player. In the above-mentioned examples Granderson is better than Gardner and Fitzgerald is better than Manningham. Absolutely.
And, I would go so far as to say that Granderson in the 5th is pretty good value. Fitzgerald for $24 is pretty good value, too. But listen, in any draft you will be able to get a very good player in the 5th round or for $24. Maybe not comparable to your particular keeper option, but good enough to be a reliable starter for you.
However, the 18th round? Good luck finding anything of value there. Good for you last year! You had the foresight to grab a guy who is a viable starter and breakout candidate this year. You gotta keep that value and go back to the well with your 5th rounder.
And $1 for a solid wide receiver who will start for you just about any week. A buck?! Yes, please. As far as "value" goes it just doesn't get much better than that.
Take your $24 and go fishing again this year... And don't forget to save $1 for next year's keeper than you nab at the end this year!
A lot of leagues don't have keeper picks and many of the ones that do have different rules about what you have to give up for the keeper, if anything. I hope there is something in this post for everyone, but if you don't have a quandary like the one in the first paragraph it probably won't be as helpful for you. I invite you to keep reading either way.
When faced with the sorts of questions outlined at the top, I find that the experts almost always pick the better player. Not the better value, the better player. In the above-mentioned examples Granderson is better than Gardner and Fitzgerald is better than Manningham. Absolutely.
And, I would go so far as to say that Granderson in the 5th is pretty good value. Fitzgerald for $24 is pretty good value, too. But listen, in any draft you will be able to get a very good player in the 5th round or for $24. Maybe not comparable to your particular keeper option, but good enough to be a reliable starter for you.
However, the 18th round? Good luck finding anything of value there. Good for you last year! You had the foresight to grab a guy who is a viable starter and breakout candidate this year. You gotta keep that value and go back to the well with your 5th rounder.
And $1 for a solid wide receiver who will start for you just about any week. A buck?! Yes, please. As far as "value" goes it just doesn't get much better than that.
Take your $24 and go fishing again this year... And don't forget to save $1 for next year's keeper than you nab at the end this year!
Monday, March 12, 2012
If you have two quarterbacks...
If you have two quarterbacks... you've really got none.
Have you ever heard that expression? The point of that sentiment is that if a team can't decide on who their starter is at a crucial position then they probably don't have anyone there who has the ability to really stand out. At a position like quarterback you want the decision to be clear.
It is similar in fantasy sports with the positions where you really want to focus on - if you are on the fence and can't decide on a clear path forward you will end up with multiple mediocre options which is a surefire way to lose a league.
Coutner-intuitive, isn't it?
Think of it like this... In fantasy baseball you'll likely play your starting position players about 125 times per year, even if you are playing the matchups. Your bench guys? You're looking at about 30 games or so. That is more than a 4:1 ratio, so you should be spending at least 80% of your money on your starting lineup.
In fantasy football it is a much more dramatic difference. Barring injuries, your starters could very well play 100% of the time. Sure, you might swap out your flex guy depending on matchups, but it is at least an 8:1 or 9:1 ratio. So, spend 90% of your resources on starters.
I'm all for having a strong bench, but you don't win any points for the guys who aren't in the lineup.
I realize this is largely common sense, but I wanted to state it for the record and put some numbers to where your resources should be going so you can have some guidelines in your mind.
There are a few caveats. In fantasy football there is an interesting phenomenon where typical players will spend their first five draft picks, in some order, on two running backs, two wide receivers, and one quarterback. It happens with remarkable regularity and leads to the caveat: the 6th round tight end. It happens all of the time. There is very often a run on tight ends in the 6th and 7th round, even if their value at that point in the draft means they should really be drafted later. People are filling out their rosters.
And, piggybacking off of that thought... You'll start to see defenses taken in rounds 7 and 8 for the same reason. Dudes are filling out their roster. Sometimes you'll even see someone draft the first 8 picks and then go on auto-draft and have a beer. This represents extraordinary value for you. It is a market inefficiency that can be exploited.
In an auction it is easier to monitor your resources and where they are going. In football you are mostly going to be dealing with snake drafts, so please take the aforementioned caveat in mind when drafting. Don't just fill out your roster.
It is a similar situation in fantasy baseball snake drafts, but the effect isn't as dramatic since there isn't a common belief on how to build a baseball roster. I will say that people tend to get one outfielder and one starting pitcher to go along with catcher, first base, second base, shortstop, and third base. So, that can be a general guideline for you. A lot of folks will do that "one of each" method in their first 7 rounds. This is why you start to see significant numbers of closers come off the board around round 8 or 9. So, I guess there is sometimes an inefficiency there, too.
The idea in a baseball snake draft would be to get your second outfielder and second starting pitcher ahead of other positions, and certainly relief pitchers. They should generally represent great value for you since many other people in your league are shifting their attention away from those positions because they already have one. But remember, you're going to be starting 3 or 5 outfielders (depending on format) and at least 4 starting pitchers. Get those guys while the competition is doing their "one of each" draft. This may mean waiting on one or two positions entirely... maybe you see catchers #3 through #12 as mostly the same so you'll wait on #11 or #12 instead of investing in #5. Same with second basemen, maybe.
So, you can make those sorts of determinations and begin to build your strategy. If you continue to read the theories and tips written in this space and listen to my forthcoming audio series, we can work on building that game plan together.
Which leads me to my last point - have a game plan. Build a plan for your draft that has some flexibility in it with the names of players you are looking at and the positions where you will use your resources. Have a plan. One, please. If you have multiple game plans, really you're going to end up feeling like you have none.
Have you ever heard that expression? The point of that sentiment is that if a team can't decide on who their starter is at a crucial position then they probably don't have anyone there who has the ability to really stand out. At a position like quarterback you want the decision to be clear.
It is similar in fantasy sports with the positions where you really want to focus on - if you are on the fence and can't decide on a clear path forward you will end up with multiple mediocre options which is a surefire way to lose a league.
Coutner-intuitive, isn't it?
Think of it like this... In fantasy baseball you'll likely play your starting position players about 125 times per year, even if you are playing the matchups. Your bench guys? You're looking at about 30 games or so. That is more than a 4:1 ratio, so you should be spending at least 80% of your money on your starting lineup.
In fantasy football it is a much more dramatic difference. Barring injuries, your starters could very well play 100% of the time. Sure, you might swap out your flex guy depending on matchups, but it is at least an 8:1 or 9:1 ratio. So, spend 90% of your resources on starters.
I'm all for having a strong bench, but you don't win any points for the guys who aren't in the lineup.
I realize this is largely common sense, but I wanted to state it for the record and put some numbers to where your resources should be going so you can have some guidelines in your mind.
There are a few caveats. In fantasy football there is an interesting phenomenon where typical players will spend their first five draft picks, in some order, on two running backs, two wide receivers, and one quarterback. It happens with remarkable regularity and leads to the caveat: the 6th round tight end. It happens all of the time. There is very often a run on tight ends in the 6th and 7th round, even if their value at that point in the draft means they should really be drafted later. People are filling out their rosters.
And, piggybacking off of that thought... You'll start to see defenses taken in rounds 7 and 8 for the same reason. Dudes are filling out their roster. Sometimes you'll even see someone draft the first 8 picks and then go on auto-draft and have a beer. This represents extraordinary value for you. It is a market inefficiency that can be exploited.
In an auction it is easier to monitor your resources and where they are going. In football you are mostly going to be dealing with snake drafts, so please take the aforementioned caveat in mind when drafting. Don't just fill out your roster.
It is a similar situation in fantasy baseball snake drafts, but the effect isn't as dramatic since there isn't a common belief on how to build a baseball roster. I will say that people tend to get one outfielder and one starting pitcher to go along with catcher, first base, second base, shortstop, and third base. So, that can be a general guideline for you. A lot of folks will do that "one of each" method in their first 7 rounds. This is why you start to see significant numbers of closers come off the board around round 8 or 9. So, I guess there is sometimes an inefficiency there, too.
The idea in a baseball snake draft would be to get your second outfielder and second starting pitcher ahead of other positions, and certainly relief pitchers. They should generally represent great value for you since many other people in your league are shifting their attention away from those positions because they already have one. But remember, you're going to be starting 3 or 5 outfielders (depending on format) and at least 4 starting pitchers. Get those guys while the competition is doing their "one of each" draft. This may mean waiting on one or two positions entirely... maybe you see catchers #3 through #12 as mostly the same so you'll wait on #11 or #12 instead of investing in #5. Same with second basemen, maybe.
So, you can make those sorts of determinations and begin to build your strategy. If you continue to read the theories and tips written in this space and listen to my forthcoming audio series, we can work on building that game plan together.
Which leads me to my last point - have a game plan. Build a plan for your draft that has some flexibility in it with the names of players you are looking at and the positions where you will use your resources. Have a plan. One, please. If you have multiple game plans, really you're going to end up feeling like you have none.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Hitting Doubles and Green Flags
The problem with the average fantasy sports manager is that they are either playing it safe or trying to hit a home run on every pick. Combining the two is better, but not by an awful lot. My suggestion is that you try to hit as many doubles as you can.
Some risk but a fair amount of upside.
When you are considering a draft pick, not just in baseball, look at trying to hit a double and get as much value as you can with the pick while limiting exposure to risk. This is achieved by looking at the so-called 'ceiling' and 'floor' of the player. The ceiling is the highest possible outcome that would be thought to be reasonable, but nothing outlandish.
The floor, of course, is obvious. What is the worst the player would do if he was healthy but just not "feeling it" this year? That is your floor.
For most unproven players or ones that are returning from injury, the gap between floor and ceiling will be fairly large. Don't be the person who gets enamored with what is possible... So many fantasy players take one line of thought with what is something that could conceivably happen that is so great
Another thing to remember, the guy coming back from a big injury like Tommy John surgery could be worse than replacement level this year, even if he won the Cy Young in his last healthy season. You can afford to swing for the fences on a few picks, especially late in your draft, but don't allow yourself to rely on these guys when there are safer alternatives available.
Similarly, there is a place for the boring but steady veteran who is what he is. Nothing special, but a reliable performer. There is no upside so their price is likely to be perfectly in proportion to what they will deliver, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, taking a few of these sorts of players throughout your draft will help to establish a baseline for you, which is something I will talk about in my audio series later this year. Building a baseline will let you know where you can take risks and where you need to try to squeeze more value.
My recommendation is that your sprinkle reliable veterans across your roster with about half of your late (or 'cheaper' in an auction) picks being the high risk guys... but everyone else will be where you are trying to hit doubles. These are the guys with fairly high floors but also with some ability to over-achieve their projections. Usually this will be found in guys just entering their prime. Proven guys who have established what can reasonably be expected but who have the ability to do even better. In baseball this will usually be guys around ages 26-28 who are entering maybe their third year in the league. In football it is earlier for running backs (23-25) and a little later for receivers and quarterbacks (25-29).
A few things to think about when looking at guys entering their prime:
1.) Evaluate their playing time situation. Are they being handed a full-time gig this year? Is there some prospect right behind them? Or, maybe a veteran brought in to provide "experience and stability"?
2.) What is their pedigree? Were they a highly touted prospect? A high draft pick? What happened in the minors (if a baseball player)? Is there a track record there? What did they do their first year or two in the league? If they had a bump, was it explainable?
3.) Environment. What is their coaching situation like? What sort of impact will teammates have - defense on a pitcher, receivers on a quarterback, etc.? What is their home field like - ballpark dimensions in baseball, turf/grass and weather in football, fans, etc.?
Often when we look at the riskiness of players we talk about red flags. When I look at some of these things I take note of the exact opposite - green flags. What indicators exist that show me evidence that the player could out-produce their draft cost? Once those green flags start piling up you will begin to feel even better about the prospect joining your squad and out-producing their cost.
One additional thought about these sorts of players. The reason why they have potentially hidden value is because they have shown themselves to be decent players but they haven't had that really big year yet. If you look at their playing time situation, pedigree, and environment you can start to map out their logical ceiling. Their floor has already been established. The best of these types of players go in the later single-digit rounds of snake drafts (5th-9th) and maybe a little later. In auctions your probably looking to spend in the $8-$14 range for these guys.
Like I said, they have stable value. If a guy is projected to cost around $10 but is one of those "entering his prime" sorts of players that we just defined, you can anticipate that even if they bottom out they will still be worth about $7 or so to you.
But if they hit their ceiling? Hoo boy... Well, you're talking maybe $30 of value.
That's how you win leagues, my friends.
More to come, stay tuned.
Some risk but a fair amount of upside.
When you are considering a draft pick, not just in baseball, look at trying to hit a double and get as much value as you can with the pick while limiting exposure to risk. This is achieved by looking at the so-called 'ceiling' and 'floor' of the player. The ceiling is the highest possible outcome that would be thought to be reasonable, but nothing outlandish.
The floor, of course, is obvious. What is the worst the player would do if he was healthy but just not "feeling it" this year? That is your floor.
For most unproven players or ones that are returning from injury, the gap between floor and ceiling will be fairly large. Don't be the person who gets enamored with what is possible... So many fantasy players take one line of thought with what is something that could conceivably happen that is so great
Another thing to remember, the guy coming back from a big injury like Tommy John surgery could be worse than replacement level this year, even if he won the Cy Young in his last healthy season. You can afford to swing for the fences on a few picks, especially late in your draft, but don't allow yourself to rely on these guys when there are safer alternatives available.
Similarly, there is a place for the boring but steady veteran who is what he is. Nothing special, but a reliable performer. There is no upside so their price is likely to be perfectly in proportion to what they will deliver, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, taking a few of these sorts of players throughout your draft will help to establish a baseline for you, which is something I will talk about in my audio series later this year. Building a baseline will let you know where you can take risks and where you need to try to squeeze more value.
My recommendation is that your sprinkle reliable veterans across your roster with about half of your late (or 'cheaper' in an auction) picks being the high risk guys... but everyone else will be where you are trying to hit doubles. These are the guys with fairly high floors but also with some ability to over-achieve their projections. Usually this will be found in guys just entering their prime. Proven guys who have established what can reasonably be expected but who have the ability to do even better. In baseball this will usually be guys around ages 26-28 who are entering maybe their third year in the league. In football it is earlier for running backs (23-25) and a little later for receivers and quarterbacks (25-29).
A few things to think about when looking at guys entering their prime:
1.) Evaluate their playing time situation. Are they being handed a full-time gig this year? Is there some prospect right behind them? Or, maybe a veteran brought in to provide "experience and stability"?
2.) What is their pedigree? Were they a highly touted prospect? A high draft pick? What happened in the minors (if a baseball player)? Is there a track record there? What did they do their first year or two in the league? If they had a bump, was it explainable?
3.) Environment. What is their coaching situation like? What sort of impact will teammates have - defense on a pitcher, receivers on a quarterback, etc.? What is their home field like - ballpark dimensions in baseball, turf/grass and weather in football, fans, etc.?
Often when we look at the riskiness of players we talk about red flags. When I look at some of these things I take note of the exact opposite - green flags. What indicators exist that show me evidence that the player could out-produce their draft cost? Once those green flags start piling up you will begin to feel even better about the prospect joining your squad and out-producing their cost.
One additional thought about these sorts of players. The reason why they have potentially hidden value is because they have shown themselves to be decent players but they haven't had that really big year yet. If you look at their playing time situation, pedigree, and environment you can start to map out their logical ceiling. Their floor has already been established. The best of these types of players go in the later single-digit rounds of snake drafts (5th-9th) and maybe a little later. In auctions your probably looking to spend in the $8-$14 range for these guys.
Like I said, they have stable value. If a guy is projected to cost around $10 but is one of those "entering his prime" sorts of players that we just defined, you can anticipate that even if they bottom out they will still be worth about $7 or so to you.
But if they hit their ceiling? Hoo boy... Well, you're talking maybe $30 of value.
That's how you win leagues, my friends.
More to come, stay tuned.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Scarcity: Sacred, Scared, or Scarred?
Let's talk about position scarcity. Different people have different theories on how much you should pay attention to position scarcity. The idea is that if there are fewer valuable players at a particular position then you should try to get one of the elite options so you can have a leg up on the rest of the league that doesn't have that advantage.
Easy differentiator, right?
Maybe. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach the concept of position scarcity, and I'm here to give you the scoop.
Sacred Cows: Some people will always go for the player at a scarce position like catcher in baseball or tight end in football. Always. They have a dogmatic approach that puts blinders on them and won't allow for a clear evaluation of one player against another at a less scarce position. There are reasons for this: (1) the belief that greater value is always had where there is less to go around; and, (2) the fact that comparing players at different positions is not apples-to-apples and, quite frankly very difficult and awfully subjective. (When you get right down to it.)
Scared Senseless: Maybe you've tried taking scarce positions early and gotten burned before. You spent a ton of resources on the #1 catcher and he failed to produce or he got injured like so many catchers tend to do. Once bitten, twice shy. Isn't it just better to go with the standard ADP's (average draft position) and take the best guy available? No! Of course it isn't. Just about everyone in your league will be using the league site's rankings as their benchmark so if you do that too you will be right in the middle of the pack. That's not where you want to be or you wouldn't be reading this. You need an edge.
Scarred: Cuts heal and when they do they can leave you with scars and a little tougher as a result. Those scars are lasting memories of the time you got beaten up and always remind you to be better next time. This is the metaphor I'm choosing for how to approach position scarcity. Look, there is value in cherry-picking the best options from the most scarce positions but you can't put blinders on and always do it just like you can't allow yourself to avoid the concept entirely.
Do your homework, and while you are compiling your research have an eye toward the scarce positions. Put together your lists and judge for yourself where the big dropoff is in value at each position. Try to get one of the guys before that big dropoff, but be smart about it.
What I mean about being smart is that you have to compare what you are giving up. Let's say for example that there are three elite catchers and maybe twelve elite outfielders. It's the third round in your draft and the top two catchers just got taken as have seven top outfielders and it is your turn to pick. You have judged the dropoff between catchers #3 and #4 is dramatic but the drop from outfielder #8 to #9 isn't so great. The sacred cow approach would be to automatically take the catcher. The fantasy manager who is scared senseless would consult the conventional rankings and take the outfielder since he is projected to get better stats than catcher #3.
I'm telling you that both approaches are wrong. I'm not saying both picks would be wrong, but both approaches would be. It is very difficult to make these sorts of decisions in 60 or 90 seconds and it is easy to fall into one of the above traps. You, however, want the greatest chance to give yourself an edge but you have to decide quickly. If you can clearly narrow it down to these two choices ("sacred" and "scared"), which is often the case, you are in great shape.
First things first... How many picks until you select again? Is there a clear delineation here whether one of your two choices will be available when you pick next? For example think of it like this: If you are picking #33 in a 12-team draft your next pick will be #40. If the catcher you are looking at is ranked at #51 and your outfielder is ranked #34 you go with the outfielder and hope that your catcher is there at #40. Easy enough, but this is a lot like the "scared" approach of just taking the highest-ranked player available. It's a little more thoughtful, but I'll admit that it isn't by much.
So let's go a bit deeper. This requires more preparation, which hopefully you have taken the time to do. Where do you anticipate the next group of catchers being taken? Let's say you think catchers #4 through #8 are roughly the same and will go off the board in or around round 7. Take a look at what outfielders ought to be available then. Mix and match the round 3 catcher with the round 7 outfielder and vice versa. Add up their stats and go for the pair with the highest total. Pretty straightforward.
This is obviously over-simplifying because there are other considerations. What if there is great value there on say, a starting pitcher? Maybe the #24-ranked player is still available at #33... That would throw a wrench into the works, but in that situation you would forget about evaluating outfielders and use Mr. #24 versus catcher #3 and go through the same exercise as outlined above.
This is the simplified version. I will delve into greater detail in my forthcoming audio series, but I wanted to provide the basic concept here.
Also, my rule of thumb is to first value my personal rankings of the player and use position scarcity as a tie-breaker, and not the other way around.
Good luck in your drafts, folks!
Easy differentiator, right?
Maybe. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach the concept of position scarcity, and I'm here to give you the scoop.
Sacred Cows: Some people will always go for the player at a scarce position like catcher in baseball or tight end in football. Always. They have a dogmatic approach that puts blinders on them and won't allow for a clear evaluation of one player against another at a less scarce position. There are reasons for this: (1) the belief that greater value is always had where there is less to go around; and, (2) the fact that comparing players at different positions is not apples-to-apples and, quite frankly very difficult and awfully subjective. (When you get right down to it.)
Scared Senseless: Maybe you've tried taking scarce positions early and gotten burned before. You spent a ton of resources on the #1 catcher and he failed to produce or he got injured like so many catchers tend to do. Once bitten, twice shy. Isn't it just better to go with the standard ADP's (average draft position) and take the best guy available? No! Of course it isn't. Just about everyone in your league will be using the league site's rankings as their benchmark so if you do that too you will be right in the middle of the pack. That's not where you want to be or you wouldn't be reading this. You need an edge.
Scarred: Cuts heal and when they do they can leave you with scars and a little tougher as a result. Those scars are lasting memories of the time you got beaten up and always remind you to be better next time. This is the metaphor I'm choosing for how to approach position scarcity. Look, there is value in cherry-picking the best options from the most scarce positions but you can't put blinders on and always do it just like you can't allow yourself to avoid the concept entirely.
Do your homework, and while you are compiling your research have an eye toward the scarce positions. Put together your lists and judge for yourself where the big dropoff is in value at each position. Try to get one of the guys before that big dropoff, but be smart about it.
What I mean about being smart is that you have to compare what you are giving up. Let's say for example that there are three elite catchers and maybe twelve elite outfielders. It's the third round in your draft and the top two catchers just got taken as have seven top outfielders and it is your turn to pick. You have judged the dropoff between catchers #3 and #4 is dramatic but the drop from outfielder #8 to #9 isn't so great. The sacred cow approach would be to automatically take the catcher. The fantasy manager who is scared senseless would consult the conventional rankings and take the outfielder since he is projected to get better stats than catcher #3.
I'm telling you that both approaches are wrong. I'm not saying both picks would be wrong, but both approaches would be. It is very difficult to make these sorts of decisions in 60 or 90 seconds and it is easy to fall into one of the above traps. You, however, want the greatest chance to give yourself an edge but you have to decide quickly. If you can clearly narrow it down to these two choices ("sacred" and "scared"), which is often the case, you are in great shape.
First things first... How many picks until you select again? Is there a clear delineation here whether one of your two choices will be available when you pick next? For example think of it like this: If you are picking #33 in a 12-team draft your next pick will be #40. If the catcher you are looking at is ranked at #51 and your outfielder is ranked #34 you go with the outfielder and hope that your catcher is there at #40. Easy enough, but this is a lot like the "scared" approach of just taking the highest-ranked player available. It's a little more thoughtful, but I'll admit that it isn't by much.
So let's go a bit deeper. This requires more preparation, which hopefully you have taken the time to do. Where do you anticipate the next group of catchers being taken? Let's say you think catchers #4 through #8 are roughly the same and will go off the board in or around round 7. Take a look at what outfielders ought to be available then. Mix and match the round 3 catcher with the round 7 outfielder and vice versa. Add up their stats and go for the pair with the highest total. Pretty straightforward.
This is obviously over-simplifying because there are other considerations. What if there is great value there on say, a starting pitcher? Maybe the #24-ranked player is still available at #33... That would throw a wrench into the works, but in that situation you would forget about evaluating outfielders and use Mr. #24 versus catcher #3 and go through the same exercise as outlined above.
This is the simplified version. I will delve into greater detail in my forthcoming audio series, but I wanted to provide the basic concept here.
Also, my rule of thumb is to first value my personal rankings of the player and use position scarcity as a tie-breaker, and not the other way around.
Good luck in your drafts, folks!
Monday, March 5, 2012
Recapturing the Glory
One of the greatest and most famous fantasy sports writers is a gentleman by the name of Ron Shandler. Ron and his Baseball HQ are fantastic resources and come highly recommended by me and, well, just about everyone.
I just have this one small problem...
Ron has a saying that goes like this, "Once you display a skill, you own it." I have heard this repeated (and usually credited) a bunch of times. People love to talk about how since a guy has done something before he could always do it again... Hope springs eternal.
There is our famous kernel of truth in there, but this is really just a lot of folly. The kernel is that if a player has shown he can do something it is possible that there are reasons why he didn't do it before or since. And, if you are a good enough detective and can build a case why he hasn't duplicated the skill yet you could get significant value in that player if he is able to recreate the skill.
The problem with this is that 9 times out of 10 you'll be chasing a ghost. For example, it is true that Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs one year. Since he displayed that skill, did he continue to own it? No, of course not. He never did it again. Was there any track record or pedigree that you could point to that proved why it happened that one year? Nope. It was just one great year where he was locked in and really drove the ball. How many years did Anderson get drafted higher than he should because people thought he might hit 40+ home runs one more time?
I'm looking for a track record, folks. I want the repeated use of skills over long periods of time. I want to grab a guy who showed what he could do as an amateur, continued to do that in the minors, and has manifested the skill in the show. Over and over again. Not just one time.
There are lots of ways you can get added value here, though. Sometimes a player will hit a lot of doubles as a very young player and as their physical stature matures those line drives into the power alleys turn into more and more home runs.
More frequently, a player will have a big season followed by a big injury. If you can find evidence to show the big year wasn't a fluke the injury may mask the player's true value and create a buying opportunity for you.
Also, playing time and park factor weigh into this. If an excellent hitter gets traded away from San Diego or in football a wide receiver signs as a free agent with a much better quarterback, you've got a better situation for that player which represents value for you.
That just shows that sometimes it isn't the guy who did some great thing once in his career that represents value for you, but rather the player who has improved their personal situation somehow. That is where the value is. The fact that that hitter hasn't played outside of Petco or the receiver hasn't caught balls from an All-Pro QB before will limit their draft day cost a bit and give you an edge on your competition.
Do your homework and think critically about the environment around a player. Don't chase their ability to recapture the glory of a few years ago.
I just have this one small problem...
Ron has a saying that goes like this, "Once you display a skill, you own it." I have heard this repeated (and usually credited) a bunch of times. People love to talk about how since a guy has done something before he could always do it again... Hope springs eternal.
There is our famous kernel of truth in there, but this is really just a lot of folly. The kernel is that if a player has shown he can do something it is possible that there are reasons why he didn't do it before or since. And, if you are a good enough detective and can build a case why he hasn't duplicated the skill yet you could get significant value in that player if he is able to recreate the skill.
The problem with this is that 9 times out of 10 you'll be chasing a ghost. For example, it is true that Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs one year. Since he displayed that skill, did he continue to own it? No, of course not. He never did it again. Was there any track record or pedigree that you could point to that proved why it happened that one year? Nope. It was just one great year where he was locked in and really drove the ball. How many years did Anderson get drafted higher than he should because people thought he might hit 40+ home runs one more time?
I'm looking for a track record, folks. I want the repeated use of skills over long periods of time. I want to grab a guy who showed what he could do as an amateur, continued to do that in the minors, and has manifested the skill in the show. Over and over again. Not just one time.
There are lots of ways you can get added value here, though. Sometimes a player will hit a lot of doubles as a very young player and as their physical stature matures those line drives into the power alleys turn into more and more home runs.
More frequently, a player will have a big season followed by a big injury. If you can find evidence to show the big year wasn't a fluke the injury may mask the player's true value and create a buying opportunity for you.
Also, playing time and park factor weigh into this. If an excellent hitter gets traded away from San Diego or in football a wide receiver signs as a free agent with a much better quarterback, you've got a better situation for that player which represents value for you.
That just shows that sometimes it isn't the guy who did some great thing once in his career that represents value for you, but rather the player who has improved their personal situation somehow. That is where the value is. The fact that that hitter hasn't played outside of Petco or the receiver hasn't caught balls from an All-Pro QB before will limit their draft day cost a bit and give you an edge on your competition.
Do your homework and think critically about the environment around a player. Don't chase their ability to recapture the glory of a few years ago.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Rhombus
A rhombus is defined as a closed geometric shape with four equal sides... Like a baseball diamond.
Today, let's think about three words from that definition: closed, four, and equal. This should be your plan for acquiring relief pitchers in fantasy baseball. Build a rhombus.
First of all, it is important to deal with some of the prevailing wisdom out there regarding closers and why people say what they do. Matthew Berry at ESPN is quite famous for saying, "Never pay for saves." I've heard on other podcasts (the MLB.com one, iirc) that you should always invest in high quality closers because it is an easy way to gain a discernible advantage in your league.
There are those kernels of truth once again, my friends. Let's work through them.
First of all, why does Berry say, "never pay for saves"? Denominators. Often times people will look at closers as being four-category players since they get strikeouts and usually have low ERA's and WHIP's. The problem with that is that they pitch so few innings (the denominator) that they won't make a dent in those three categories, and that is why Berry says what he does. He views closers as one-category players and they mostly are. Mostly. There's your kernel of truth.
The other part of his view is that you can always get saves off of the waiver wire... Saves come into the league since it is such a volatile role in real life baseball. This is true, but do you really want to rely on your ability to get some saves from a competitive source? ...eventually?
What I want you to do is to consider the rhombus. Go out and get four closers that are of roughly equal value, but don't spend too much on any of them. This will give you a gigantic advantage in saves and a little extra contribution in K's, ERA, and WHIP. You just stick them in your lineup and leave them there. In a 10 or 12 team league having four good closers virtually assures first or second place in saves, and while the denominator of innings pitched won't move the needle too much on those other three categories it also won't hurt you any. And, hey, those extra contributions might push you up one or two spots in a couple of those categories. It could literally bump your season-ending point total up by maybe 3 or 4 points. At the very least it won't hurt you, which is awesome. This is a market inefficiency that you can exploit.
More good news: If you have four closers and one gets injured you won't be scrambling for a replacement. If one is a bust, same thing. If you build a massive lead in saves you can trade one. If you are lucky enough to pick up some saves off of the waiver wire, more trade fodder. It's all good.
Also, I should note that this is really for mixed leagues. If you are drafting in AL-only or NL-only you will only need 3 closers at the most, or even just 2 if it is a league of 12 or more teams. A 10-team single league is a grey area... See if you can get 3, but this strategy is probably still very effective with 2.
Now, how do you pick four equal guys that don't cost too much? Easy enough... Start by making a list of one closer (or most likely candidate) from every team. Then, throw out the top of the list and the bottom of the list. It should be obvious to you who the really elite and expensive guys are and who the crappy options are who might not even have the job for sure. As a rule of thumb I would take 10 from the top and another 10 from the bottom. So, you'll be wanting to get four of those guys in about the #11-#20 range.
In an auction draft you should have a good idea of about what they will cost... set a budget and go for it.
In a snake draft wait until 10 closers go off the board and then start making your picks. At that point you are probably going to go with 4 closers in about the next 8 rounds or so. It will probably be something like rounds 9 through 17.
So, for example... if you grab closers in rounds 10, 11, 14, and 16 you should be in good shape. This is a significant investment, but most of your starting lineup has already been taken care of early. Think of it as spending several middle-to-late picks dominating a category and contributing to three others at the expense of having higher quality bench guys.
That is a worthy swap every time. Think rhombus.
Today, let's think about three words from that definition: closed, four, and equal. This should be your plan for acquiring relief pitchers in fantasy baseball. Build a rhombus.
First of all, it is important to deal with some of the prevailing wisdom out there regarding closers and why people say what they do. Matthew Berry at ESPN is quite famous for saying, "Never pay for saves." I've heard on other podcasts (the MLB.com one, iirc) that you should always invest in high quality closers because it is an easy way to gain a discernible advantage in your league.
There are those kernels of truth once again, my friends. Let's work through them.
First of all, why does Berry say, "never pay for saves"? Denominators. Often times people will look at closers as being four-category players since they get strikeouts and usually have low ERA's and WHIP's. The problem with that is that they pitch so few innings (the denominator) that they won't make a dent in those three categories, and that is why Berry says what he does. He views closers as one-category players and they mostly are. Mostly. There's your kernel of truth.
The other part of his view is that you can always get saves off of the waiver wire... Saves come into the league since it is such a volatile role in real life baseball. This is true, but do you really want to rely on your ability to get some saves from a competitive source? ...eventually?
What I want you to do is to consider the rhombus. Go out and get four closers that are of roughly equal value, but don't spend too much on any of them. This will give you a gigantic advantage in saves and a little extra contribution in K's, ERA, and WHIP. You just stick them in your lineup and leave them there. In a 10 or 12 team league having four good closers virtually assures first or second place in saves, and while the denominator of innings pitched won't move the needle too much on those other three categories it also won't hurt you any. And, hey, those extra contributions might push you up one or two spots in a couple of those categories. It could literally bump your season-ending point total up by maybe 3 or 4 points. At the very least it won't hurt you, which is awesome. This is a market inefficiency that you can exploit.
More good news: If you have four closers and one gets injured you won't be scrambling for a replacement. If one is a bust, same thing. If you build a massive lead in saves you can trade one. If you are lucky enough to pick up some saves off of the waiver wire, more trade fodder. It's all good.
Also, I should note that this is really for mixed leagues. If you are drafting in AL-only or NL-only you will only need 3 closers at the most, or even just 2 if it is a league of 12 or more teams. A 10-team single league is a grey area... See if you can get 3, but this strategy is probably still very effective with 2.
Now, how do you pick four equal guys that don't cost too much? Easy enough... Start by making a list of one closer (or most likely candidate) from every team. Then, throw out the top of the list and the bottom of the list. It should be obvious to you who the really elite and expensive guys are and who the crappy options are who might not even have the job for sure. As a rule of thumb I would take 10 from the top and another 10 from the bottom. So, you'll be wanting to get four of those guys in about the #11-#20 range.
In an auction draft you should have a good idea of about what they will cost... set a budget and go for it.
In a snake draft wait until 10 closers go off the board and then start making your picks. At that point you are probably going to go with 4 closers in about the next 8 rounds or so. It will probably be something like rounds 9 through 17.
So, for example... if you grab closers in rounds 10, 11, 14, and 16 you should be in good shape. This is a significant investment, but most of your starting lineup has already been taken care of early. Think of it as spending several middle-to-late picks dominating a category and contributing to three others at the expense of having higher quality bench guys.
That is a worthy swap every time. Think rhombus.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Know Your Role
Many leagues will post the draft order or nomination order one hour before the draft. Others will be selected earlier or even have a "slow draft" format with picks made via email. Even if you only have one hour to prepare I can help you make the most of your draft position in serpentine drafts. With auctions, the same advice has extremely limited effect. (Though not zero.)
The best position in a serpentine draft for this strategy will be one or two spots from the so-called "wheel" picks. People refer to the first and last spots in the draft as the "wheel" because at that point the order 'wheels' back around allowing the same person to pick twice, reversing the picking order. (i.e. In a 12-team draft the last team will get pick #12 and also pick #13.)
Let's assume for this exercise that you are picking 10th in a 12-team snake draft. Your job is to get as much information as possible on the drafting patterns and fantasy sports acumen of the folks picking 11th and 12th.
If you luck out, you'll find that these two people are pretty average and usually take the best player available. This will give you an excellent idea of who they are likely to select with the next four (two each) picks after you select your guy. You, of course, will be very well prepared for your draft and in any given round you will have several players lined up in your queue at several different positions. The strategy here is obvious - take your top two options and pick the one that is lower on your league's website's ranking order. The managers in slots #11 and #12 are more likely to take the better-ranked player so you have a much better chance of getting the two players you target if you take them in the order of how they are ranked on your site.
There is another hidden value of being near the wheel. It gives you a bit of time between your close picks to be sure of the second in the pair, and more importantly it will give you tons of time on the other side to get your queue right and do that last-minute fact checking.
For these reasons, my favorite draft position is #3. That said, there have been research studies that have shown the closer to #1 you pick the higher your chances of winning you league. That is an extremely large sample size though, so I would say that each individual league is it's own animal and should be treated as such.
Drop me a line if you need any help this baseball season... I'm happy to help.
The best position in a serpentine draft for this strategy will be one or two spots from the so-called "wheel" picks. People refer to the first and last spots in the draft as the "wheel" because at that point the order 'wheels' back around allowing the same person to pick twice, reversing the picking order. (i.e. In a 12-team draft the last team will get pick #12 and also pick #13.)
Let's assume for this exercise that you are picking 10th in a 12-team snake draft. Your job is to get as much information as possible on the drafting patterns and fantasy sports acumen of the folks picking 11th and 12th.
If you luck out, you'll find that these two people are pretty average and usually take the best player available. This will give you an excellent idea of who they are likely to select with the next four (two each) picks after you select your guy. You, of course, will be very well prepared for your draft and in any given round you will have several players lined up in your queue at several different positions. The strategy here is obvious - take your top two options and pick the one that is lower on your league's website's ranking order. The managers in slots #11 and #12 are more likely to take the better-ranked player so you have a much better chance of getting the two players you target if you take them in the order of how they are ranked on your site.
There is another hidden value of being near the wheel. It gives you a bit of time between your close picks to be sure of the second in the pair, and more importantly it will give you tons of time on the other side to get your queue right and do that last-minute fact checking.
For these reasons, my favorite draft position is #3. That said, there have been research studies that have shown the closer to #1 you pick the higher your chances of winning you league. That is an extremely large sample size though, so I would say that each individual league is it's own animal and should be treated as such.
Drop me a line if you need any help this baseball season... I'm happy to help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)