NFBC Message Boards

I always find it interesting to look back at the Main Event totals. Somewhere along the way someone really smart (Childs I think) posted that they shoot for top 20% of each category. Here is what that top 20% looked like for the last 3 years in the main event:

Category = 2015, 2014, 2013

Ave = .270, .267, .271
Runs = 1009, 989, 1003
HR = 263, 237, 250
RBI = 975, 956, 966
SB = 145, 155, 155

ERA = 3.51, 3.32, 3.48
WHIP = 1.20, 1.19, 1.19
Wins = 98, 99, 99
Saves = 88, 89, 89
Ks = 1375, 1415, 1375

If you would have hit each of those targets you would have finished 9th, 11th, 8th overall.

Drafting towards targets seems so intuitively obvious except for the fact that using NFBC leagues, each team only drafts 65-85 percent of their year ending total (average 75 percent) and there's not a huge correlation between what you draft and where you finish.

ToddZ wrote:Drafting towards targets seems so intuitively obvious except for the fact that using NFBC leagues, each team only drafts 65-85 percent of their year ending total (average 75 percent) and there's not a huge correlation between what you draft and where you finish.

It is a draft balance tool. Is my draft in or out of balance across cats? If my injured/under-performer players aren't also balanced it won't mean much to the end result.

I hear the balance consideration but I find that tilts too many to make sure they hit the targets in lieu of leaving better players on the board. You have 26 weeks to balance things out if needed.

90 percent of the time you're taking the same player regardless if you're using targets or not. It's those three other players that are taken just to win the draft that are an issue (for me anyway).

Sometimes those three players that make you win the draft don't help you win the league.

Its a good tool for someone who wants balance from draft day. I would say that using targets helps in your draft if you lose focus on certain categories and need to balance. Especially batting average and pitching percentages.

I suppose many use FAAB as a balancing tool while others just pick up the best free agents available. If I leave a draft noticeably weak in a category, you can bet I am looking for someone in FAAB to fill that need.

I like looking at target numbers for trends, such as the downward trend on SBs and upward on HRs.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.

ToddZ wrote:I hear the balance consideration but I find that tilts too many to make sure they hit the targets in lieu of leaving better players on the board. You have 26 weeks to balance things out if needed.

90 percent of the time you're taking the same player regardless if you're using targets or not. It's those three other players that are taken just to win the draft that are an issue (for me anyway).

Sometimes those three players that make you win the draft don't help you win the league.

Yeah, you still need to balance how important balance is.

I love competitors who draft with "targets in mind". They tend to overlook players because they don't "fit well" with the team they are drafting. Checkmate

ToddZ wrote:You have 26 weeks to balance things out if needed.

You bring up an interesting topic. What percentage of NFBC success is attributed to the draft vs. in-season management in your opinion?

I believe that targets are more about roster construction.
Figurative targets, rather than literal.
Anybody chasing those literal targets will be severely disappointed in most cases.
A player that most of us have never heard of will be a coveted FAAB pickup in July.
We're just helping our team in any way possible. Grinding for a point here or there.
Targets forgotten.

Targets are a draft day mirage.
Or, a plan.
Like Mike Tyson said, "Everybody has a plan till they get hit in the mouth.
In fantasy terms, injuries and underperformance are the hit in the mouth.
Targets tumbling to the canvas.

JohnP wrote:

ToddZ wrote:You have 26 weeks to balance things out if needed.

You bring up an interesting topic. What percentage of NFBC success is attributed to the draft vs. in-season management in your opinion?

To win at this level, u need to be skillful at both

DOUGHBOYS wrote:I believe that targets are more about roster construction.
Figurative targets, rather than literal.
Anybody chasing those literal targets will be severely disappointed in most cases.
A player that most of us have never heard of will be a coveted FAAB pickup in July.
We're just helping our team in any way possible. Grinding for a point here or there.
Targets forgotten.

Targets are a draft day mirage.
Or, a plan.
Like Mike Tyson said, "Everybody has a plan till they get hit in the mouth.
In fantasy terms, injuries and underperformance are the hit in the mouth.
Targets tumbling to the canvas.

Speaking of, mlbc is just around the corner ...

JohnP wrote:

ToddZ wrote:You have 26 weeks to balance things out if needed.

You bring up an interesting topic. What percentage of NFBC success is attributed to the draft vs. in-season management in your opinion?

Honestly no clue. Something I've learned is you need to work your ass off at both to be successful - and based on my record (and size of my ass), I have some work to do.

ToddZ wrote:

JohnP wrote:

ToddZ wrote:You have 26 weeks to balance things out if needed.

You bring up an interesting topic. What percentage of NFBC success is attributed to the draft vs. in-season management in your opinion?

Honestly no clue. Something I've learned is you need to work your ass off at both to be successful - and based on my record (and size of my ass), I have some work to do.

I doubt it is a knowable number, very likely changes league to league and player to player. If 75% of yr-end stats comes from drafted players as Zola suggests, that's a starting point. But a lot of that 75% is going to be filler; 50/50 is probably in the ballpark on average. Competition's tough, better get good at both.

No one else has brought up the old adage, so I will. You cannot win at the draft table, but you can lose. No amount of FA can make up for a poor draft. That being said, it is in-season management that separates the wheat from the chaff. I believe (in my mind...a naturally scary place) I draft fairly well but suck at in-season management. Hence I always seem to be just a little behind the truly great players in this game.

And not matter what anyone says, everybody targets. Have to. Imagine you are in a field and you are in a race, but there are no lines or other indicators as to where the finish line is. Without some knowledge of what it takes to get the necessary points in a category, you are like the runner in the field. You have 360 degrees of options, so you would be running blind. Targets at least let you know where the finish line is.

I think it absolutely helps to have targets in drafts, it's a guideline for the goals you need to set. HOWEVER, if you let the categories dictate where you go over the proper value of a player's projection, I think that's a misstep. For example, you sit there in the late stages of a 15 team mixed and are somewhat short on HR so you dip down and get Adam Duvall over Melky Cabrera. Probably a pretty bad decision.

I would also say that setting and trying to reach targets to win something like the main event with SO many participants is probably a fool's errand as opposed to simply trying to do so for a 15 team mixed or a mono league with FAAB. just too much variance in an event that size.

Gekko wrote:I love competitors who draft with "targets in mind". They tend to overlook players because they don't "fit well" with the team they are drafting. Checkmate

Targets are good for shaping the battlefield but there are so many combos of players/projections that get people there. I can't think of too many people that walk away from a draft thinking that they didn't hit the targets, thereby nullifying the value of the targets. 14 players in each league are going to be wrong, and I'm confident all 14 thought they were right as the draft ended.

There's an applicable Dwight Eisenhower quote here: "Planning is everything; the plan is nothing".

Does anyone know of a site that describes current MLB managers tendencies (coaching styles), especially as it pertains to fantasy baseball? E.G. which managers like to steal, which like platooning, playing veterans over rookies, etc.

Thanks

fwicker wrote:Does anyone know of a site that describes current MLB managers tendencies (coaching styles), especially as it pertains to fantasy baseball? E.G. which managers like to steal, which like platooning, playing veterans over rookies, etc.

Thanks

The annual Bill James Handbook has this data. Baseball Info Solutions publishes it.

fwicker wrote:There's an applicable Dwight Eisenhower quote here: "Planning is everything; the plan is nothing".

or as they say in sales - Plan your Work and Work your Plan

BUT I agree with GG and others who have said you MUST have a full working knowledge of what you are after and NOT let your draft plan get in the way of making the right pick - just because you never thought that guy would be available at that point or because less than ADP, or practice DC or satellite drafts or other tools which get you ready - you HAVE to be able to react

fwicker wrote:Does anyone know of a site that describes current MLB managers tendencies (coaching styles), especially as it pertains to fantasy baseball? E.G. which managers like to steal, which like platooning, playing veterans over rookies, etc.

Thanks

That would be a hell of an idea for Todd and those guys at mastersball. Similar to BFD fantasy football that has a well done coaching tree for NFL teams. Would be very valuable in baseball to have laid out as well. I could see Todd putting on a clinic writing that piece.

Cocktails and Dreams wrote:

fwicker wrote:Does anyone know of a site that describes current MLB managers tendencies (coaching styles), especially as it pertains to fantasy baseball? E.G. which managers like to steal, which like platooning, playing veterans over rookies, etc.

Thanks

That would be a hell of an idea for Todd and those guys at mastersball. Similar to BFD fantasy football that has a well done coaching tree for NFL teams. Would be very valuable in baseball to have laid out as well. I could see Todd putting on a clinic writing that piece.

It has some DFS application too.

There's a chance it's out there somewhere so I need to poke around so I'm not accused of being the Amy Schumer of fantasy writing.

That said, the BJH does have a ton of that info.