NFBC Message Boards

Today Tom and I assembled 12 industry professionals to compete in our Krause Publications Industry League. Although it's just a 12-team league, it's always fun to draft with these guys because they tend to give you a sense of where some of the top free agents and rookies will go on Draft Day. We'll play this league out, so everyone drafted hard.



Interestingly, Nate Ravitz of RotoTimes.com and a 2005 NFBC league champion had the first pick and took Johan Santana. As he stated, nobody dominates his position like Santana and it will make for good copy in the magazine! You can ask Nate if he would do that in the NFBC if he gets the first pick as he will be back in 2007 once he determines which city he will be drafting from. Anyway, here's the first few rounds, with the entire draft being listed in our first Fantasy Sports Magazine issue in late January.



FIRST ROUND

1. Johan Santana (Nate Ravitz, Rototimes.com)

2. Albert Pujols (Rob Gordon, BaseballHQ.com)

3. Alfonso Soriano (Tom Kessenich, NFBC)

4. Ryan Howard (Walter Lis, STATS)

5. Jose Reyes (Jeff Erickson, Rotowire.com)

6. Alex Rodriguez (David Gonos, Sportsline.com)

7. Carl Crawford (Brian Walton, CreativeSports.com)

8. Chase Utley (Greg Ambrosius, KP)

9. Carlos Beltran (Brandon Funston, Yahoo Sports)

10. Vladimir Guerrero (Matthew Pouliott, RotoWorld.com)

11. Miguel Cabrera (Nando DiFino, TalentedMrRoto.com)

12. David Wright, Tristan Cockroft, ESPN.com)



SECOND ROUND

13. David Ortiz

14. Carlos Lee

15. Chris Carpenter

16. Lance Berkman

17. Jimmy Rollins

18. Mark Teixeira

19. Derek Jeter

20. Travis Hafner

21. Ichiro Suzuki

22. Derrek Lee

23. Matt Holliday

24. Grady Sizemore



THIRD ROUND

25. Manny Ramirez

26. Rafael Furcal

27. Bobby Abreu

28. Miguel Tejada

29. Joe Mauer

30. Victor Martinez

31. Hanley Ramirez

32. Jason Bay

33. Michael Young

34. Vernon Wells

35. Justin Morneau

36. Andruw Jones



FOURTH ROUND

37. Aramis Ramirez

38. Chone Figgins

39. Jake Peavy

40. Garrett Atkins

41. Juan Pierre

42. Carlos Delgado

43. Jermaine Dye

44. Roy Oswalt

45. Roy Halladay

46. Carlos Zambrano

47. Brian Roberts

48. Paul Konerko



FIFTH ROUND

49. Corey Patterson

50. Brian McCann

51. Chipper Jones

52. Francisco Rodriguez

53. Robinson Cano

54. Johnny Damon

55. Ryan Zimmerman

56. Joe Nathan

57. Howie Kendrick

58. Brandon Webb

59. B.J. Ryan

60. Carlos Guillen



SIXTH ROUND

61. Mariano Rivera

62. Bill Hall

63. Billy Wagner

64. Trevor Hoffman

65. Felix Hernandez

66. Mike Cameron

67. Hideki Matsui

68. Scott Rolen

69. Dan Uggla

70. Rickie Weeks

71. Jeremy Bonderman

72. Huston Street



Round 7

73. Gary Sheffield

74. Todd Helton

75. John Smoltz

76. Joe Crede

77. John Lackey

78. Julio Lugo

79. Ben Sheets

80. Jim Thome

81. Daisuke Matsuzaka

82. Adam Dunn

83. Nick Swisher

84. Felipe Lopez



Round 8

85. Prince Fielder

86. Dan Haren

87. Jeff Kent

88. Aaron Harang

89. Jered Weaver

90. Scott Kazmir

91. Torii Hunter

92. Richie Sexson

93. Bobby Jenks

94. J.J. Putz

95. Cole Hamels

96. Chad Cordero



Thoughts?



[ December 27, 2006, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

Morneau late 3rd and Aramis early 4th look like bargains.



You can justify taking Santana #1 based on last yr's numbers, but adjusting him for higher pitcher risk makes that pick look questionable. Peavy & Felix '06 versus '05 should be warning enough.



[ December 19, 2006, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Morneau late 3rd and Aramis early 4th look like bargains. Yeah, I took Bay with the 32nd pick and liked those two guys and Wells. Too much to choose from in a 12-team draft!!

First impression: 12-team mixed leagues are for wimps!

The Johan pick is something I've been thinking about--that he can go anywhere. It seems like some people are for taking him in the first round (at any slot) and some aren't. He doesn't seem like a Chase Utley where if he slides far enough anyone would take him. Conceivably, you could have none of those people in a draft and he would slip to the second. Or a guy who takes him with the first pick (though less likely with KDS).



I am in the camp that just wouldn't take him. In the mid-first, there are better players and if he fell to the end I wouldn't take him if for no other reason than I'd assume he wouldn't be there and would never have planned for the eventuality that I'd be taking a pitcher that early.



Also, though, it depends on your confidence level with pitchers. One of the best posts I've seen on these boards was a couple years ago when someone said draft to your strengths. If you have a hard time finding pitchers from year-to-year but you can build a powerful offense without a premium player, it makes sense. Nate did a nice job of supplementing Santana with offense here in the first four rounds and makes the pick look good. Konerko at the end of the fourth doesn't hurt.



I am on the other side. I think I read a post that said Santana is 2X better than any other pitcher. Well, mathematically, that's obviously impossible, but he may seem twice as *likely* to be effective. In other words, he seems more of a sure thing. That's true to a degree, but I have confidence that I can build a staff with a later ace that can be just as good (it would be naive to think the NL Cy Young might not be just as effective as he and the NL pitcher will almost certainly go a few rounds later--at least).



However I don't have confidence in my ability to draft a great offense without a first round slugger, so drafting Santana early seems like a no-no for me personally regardless of pick.



[ December 19, 2006, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Morneau late 3rd and Aramis early 4th look like bargains.



You can justify taking Santana #1 based on last yr's numbers, but adjusting him for higher pitcher risk makes that pick look questionable. Peavy & Felix '06 versus '05 should be warning enough. Then again there is Santana '06 vs '05 .

Originally posted by bjoak:

I think I read a post that said Santana is 2X better than any other pitcher. Well, mathematically, that's obviously impossible, but he may seem twice as *likely* to be effective. I think you're referring to my comment that the difference in Santana's value over other pitchers is 2x that of the difference between Pujols and other hitters (i.e., say Santana is worth $40 and the next pitcher is worth $30, whereas Pujols is worth $40 the next batter is worth $35).

Keep in mind Santana's value is about $40 using the standard 65/35 split, which has moved towards 70/30 since 5x5 took over.



Using the correct split of 50/50, Johan's value jumps close to $60 while the top hitter's drops, from about $50 to $42.



I think there are 3 considerations when thinking about taking a pitcher, any pitcher early.



A. Value-wise, is the pitcher worth it? Santana is unequivocally YES!!!



B. Is there a risk, either health or performance involved? Performance? Nah, not with Johan. Health? Jokes about healthy pitchers being pitchers waiting for an injury aside, I don't think he is any more of a health risk than a Pujols or a Reyes or a D Lee. So for me, no, there is no health risk.



C. Strategically, can I build a better team drafting or passing on Johan? Value-wise, the answer is take him, it's that great a difference. Yet, it is easier to bully a hitting roster and finesse a pitching roster than vice versa. That is, you can assemble a fine pitching staff with later picks, plus you can manage a staff using your reserves throughout the season. It really comes down to your gut feel with respect to being able to fill out a competitive offense without a first round $35-$45 hitter.

I respectfully disagree with some of your points Todd.



I don't know that Santana's value next year will be that great. Don't ge me wrong: it probably will be but pitcher values fluxuate a lot more from year to year than hitters. I think we all know the examples well enough that I can skip them. Therefore he is a bit of a value gamble compared to a primo hitter. As I said, he is maybe less of a gamble than other pitchers, but I seem to remember 2004 and 2005 where he had to be absolutely phenomenal to make up for slow starts.



Pitchers are more likely to get hurt than hitters. The likelihood for catastrophic injury to any given pitcher is at least 10% in any given season. I don't have hitter data but it certainly isn't that high. You can make the argument that you need pitchers even more because of this--I'm just not sure about the first round.



The other thing is that I don't know how we can assume he will be far and away better than other pitchers in the coming year. I think if he's healthy it will be hard for an AL pitcher to beat him, but I think the top 1 or 2 NL pitchers will have a shot. There is at least enough fluxuation in pitcher value for that.



I also think this was a much safer bet 2-3 years ago when other pitchers went in the first two rounds. The number of premium hitters drops drastically in the first round while the strength of pitchers remains exactly the same. Supply and demand.



I wouldn't argue with anyone who took him with any pick, but I disagree more with the strength of your points than their accuracy. Santana *may* have the best value, but I don't think that is unequivocally true. He *may* be healthy but I don't know that he has the same chance as some of the hitters. He *may* have a huge gap between himself and 4th to 5th round pitchers, but I'm not going to bet the farm on it.

Well said Todd.



I don't think he is any more of a health risk than a Pujols or a Reyes or a D Lee. Interesting point. Compared to those 3 he's LESS of a risk. I'm particularly worried about Pujols. I owned him in the Ultimate Auction last year, and after seeing that absolutely ridiculous oblique strain, he had me nervous the remainder of the season. Folks if he can injur himself like that, then merely brushing his teeth becomes high risk activity. Somethings is SERIOUSLY not right there.

Points well taken.



A pitcher's resultant performance does fluctuate more than hitters, though their basal skill set usually does not. The reason being there are more events out of a pitcher's control that effect their results than those of a hitter.



I also feel we sometimes get caught up in the general philosophy of regressing to the norm and don't treat individual cases with the appropriate amount of scrutiny. This is where scouting and gut instinct may override what the numbers say. And in these instances where opinions prevail, explanations are necessary, so....



I just look at Johan's 3 year stat line and figure even if he regresses 10% from what our monkey friend Marcel expects, he laps the field when you compute values giving 50% of the budget to pitchers. I have as much confidence in Santana meeting his 3 year weighted average AS ANYONE IN THE LEAGUE, pitcher or hitter. His skills are that consistent.



I've also seen enough injury to first round talent in the past couple of years (Pujols, D Lee, Vlad, Helton) to discount the usual "but he's a pitcher" caveat.



That said, I am hung up on the strategy aspect though. I am on record in a mag draft for the Fantasy Baseball Guide as saying I would take him as early as 4th. I got him at 11 I think in that draft. After doing some preliminary analysis of the playing field, I am hedging off that comment. My observation as of now are the player pool has fewer upper tier hitters than in year's past. You get to the 3rd and 4th round and just sense the guy you took last year or in 2005 was better than those available this season. On the flip side, there is a very, very deep pool of not necessarily great, but pretty damned useful pitching which can be massaged into a competitve staff.

A pitcher's resultant performance does fluctuate more than hitters, though their basal skill set usually does not. The reason being there are more events out of a pitcher's control that effect their results than those of a hitter. Of course, but does that bode well for Santana? I'm not that jazzed about Minnesota's offense, defense, or the league they're in. Their ballpark is only neutral but you could make the case you don't want your pitcher in there regardless. Nice relief pitching, tho, not that they don't have the same things working against them as the starters.



[ December 20, 2006, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Nice relief pitching For me, herein lies the key. High K, low walks and a lights out bullpen is a great combo.



If there is a chink in the armor, it is that Santana is a fly ball pitcher. However, he is an EXTREME fly ball pitcher which is actually good in that there is SOME evidence that this means he is able to induce weaker contact (backed by his strikeout rate). Other than Chicago, the parks in the ALC have room for Hunter to chase down those flies, so Santana is able to maintain a HR rate at something better than the normal 10-11%.

Mauer and V. Martinez taken before Bay...are they making some sort of statement or has Bay really slipped in the industry expectations?



My ONLY objection to Santana is, he is at best, a four category stud (admittedly so are most of the first rounders). That fourth category is Wins and Wins are, to me, the MOST mercurial stat. As mentioned by Todd, a good defense and good (great) bullpen mitigate some of the risk, but the greater depth (as defined as number of available desirable positions) of pitching makes me want to emphasis offense first.



What I mean is if you consider the five starters and one closer as the "desirable" pitching positions, you come up with 180 pitching spots. We will draft as our "front" line 135 of those spots (though some will draft set-up/closers in waiting) or a 75% penetration. The penetration is even less if you add some of the key set-up/closers in waiting.



On offense, we draft 210 of the 240 desirable positions (8 offensive positions times the 30 teams) or an 87.5% dilution for our main 14 offensive players. There are a few pure platoon situations, but the calculation is directionally correct. There is more opportunity in pitching later in the draft than there is offense.

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

My ONLY objection to Santana is, he is at best, a four category stud (admittedly so are most of the first rounders). That fourth category is Wins and Wins are, to me, the MOST mercurial stat. As mentioned by Todd, a good defense and good (great) bullpen mitigate some of the risk, but the greater depth (as defined as number of available desirable positions) of pitching makes me want to emphasis offense first.



What I mean is if you consider the five starters and one closer as the "desirable" pitching positions, you come up with 180 pitching spots. We will draft as our "front" line 135 of those spots (though some will draft set-up/closers in waiting) or a 75% penetration. The penetration is even less if you add some of the key set-up/closers in waiting.



On offense, we draft 210 of the 240 desirable positions (8 offensive positions times the 30 teams) or an 87.5% dilution for our main 14 offensive players. There are a few pure platoon situations, but the calculation is directionally correct. There is more opportunity in pitching later in the draft than there is offense. Good points, totally agree with the 'mercurial wins'. Insteresting numbers too on the depth of pitchers vs. hitters with respect fantasy starters. However, while true, I think it can lead one to fall into a trap if you're not careful, that is, the pitchers who go later in the draft, on average, have a much higher 'suck factor'. Too many of these can lead to what's known as 'Kurt Ainsworth Syndrome'.



Kurt Ainsworth's 2004 numbers: 9.68 ERA 1.924 WHIP.



It doesn't take long before a couple of Ainsworth type pitchers completely and irreparably destroys your WHIP and ERA.



Given that you start 14 hitters and 9 pitchers(and usually only 7 are starting pitchers), the effect of a couple Ainsworth type starts does more damage than a bunch of donuts from one of your hitters. An Ainsworth type shelling will damage 2 categories ERA & WHIP, while the poor hitter only sucks down your BA.



I doubt if anyone has ever crunched the numbers, but it would be interesting to see the average ERA & WHIP of starting pitchers drafted in rounds:



a) 1-5

b) 6-10

c) 11-15....etc.



Sure, there are always going to be your Verlanders and Josh Johnsons out there, but you have to dance through the mine fields of Kurt Ainsworth and Gavin Floyd. It can work, as long as you don't mind playing roto roulette with your ERA & WHIP.



[ December 20, 2006, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Liquidhippo ]

Okay, I've added rounds 5 and 6 on the first post. Enjoy.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Okay, I've added rounds 5 and 6 on the first post. Enjoy. Way Way too early for Howie Kendrick- nothing wrong with being high on him but no value from that spot.

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Okay, I've added rounds 5 and 6 on the first post. Enjoy. Way Way too early for Howie Kendrick- nothing wrong with being high on him but no value from that spot. [/QUOTE]Brandon Funston likes him!

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Okay, I've added rounds 5 and 6 on the first post. Enjoy. Way Way too early for Howie Kendrick- nothing wrong with being high on him but no value from that spot. [/QUOTE]Brandon Funston likes him! [/QUOTE]How come "the Gamer" never plays the nfbc- I am sure he is an idol to Big Dogs and with picks like that can be in my league any day of the week.

Round 7

73. Gary Sheffield

74. Todd Helton

75. John Smoltz

76. Joe Crede

77. John Lackey

78. Julio Lugo

79. Ben Sheets

80. Jim Thome

81. Daisuke Matsuzaka

82. Adam Dunn

83. Nick Swisher

84. Felipe Lopez



Round 8

85. Prince Fielder

86. Dan Haren

87. Jeff Kent

88. Aaron Harang

89. Jered Weaver

90. Scott Kazmir

91. Torii Hunter

92. Richie Sexson

93. Bobby Jenks

94. J.J. Putz

95. Cole Hamels

96. Chad Cordero