Ch ch ch changes.......
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:18 am
Every Monday until Greg and Tom beg me to stop, I will be posting an essay for entertainment purposes only. As time permits, I will be happy to check back and address any questions you might have.
Recent archive:
1-15 Whither an Expert
_______________________________________________________
As mentioned last week, today I will discuss a couple of aspects of my NFBC strategy that need improvement. The first was actually nailed by board regular Chest Rockwell when he correctly suggested my game is devoid of some necessary calculated risk. The second is the manner I have approached pitching.
In the auction format, each team gets $260 to buy their team. If you convert rotisserie points to value, the winning team usually amasses between $320 and $330. Solid money management focusing upon low-risk players is my usual modus operandi. If I am on my game and adjust to the ebb and flow of an auction, I will buy considerably more than $260 worth of talent which usually includes taking some chances with fungible players in the end-game. With sage use of FAAB and clever roster management, the Yoohoo shower is readily attainable.
Transposing this philosophy to drafting, my standard operating procedure has been to build a solid foundation with low risk players and take my chances with the back end of my lineup and reserves. Instead of using solid money management to accrue profit, I assumed proper ranking of players combined with knowing their ADP and taking them at the right time would generate profit. I would always make sure I had open spots in the outfield and corner to pick up the plethora of valuable players inevitably on the board late.
With respect to the ability to gain profit, there is a significant difference between the two entities. In an auction, one can gain a distinct advantage by avoiding inflated prices while accumulating a roster of under priced producers. In a draft, the field is leveled by the serpentine nature of picking players. The distribution of talent is much flatter. The degree of separation is less in a draft.
So the question I am pondering is should I attempt to find mid-draft profit by taking some chances on players with some degree of risk associated with their performance? This could be a means to distance myself from the pack. Obviously the catch is this distance can go in either direction.
I recently partook in a draft for a real league that mirrors the NFBC format and in fact was formed in part to be used as an NFBC dress rehearsal for many of its participants. I entered the draft with the mindset of taking chances. I even named my team Risky Business and hired Rebecca DeMorney to be my co-manager. Round-by-round analysis will be available for those smart enough to invest a few of their dollars over at www.FantasyBaseball.com but one nugget I will share is I learned you cannot just blindly enter a draft and plan to take chances. You need to identify those players you consider to be risky and then make sure you have the available roster spot and statistical need when it comes the appropriate time to choose them. It also helps to know their ADP, just like any other player. I will be doing at least two more NFBC satellites to see if I can teach this old dog a couple of newer, riskier tricks.
Believe it or not, it was not all that long ago that 4x4 leagues were the dominant format. Obviously, 5x5 has taken over as the primary scoring style. With this change has come a revised, actually more varied manner in which the wise rotisserie player approaches pitching. In 4x4, ratios are half the points and one category correlates quite well to the other, so it is really only common sense to design a strategy that excels in ratios. The primary means to that end was the deployment of skilled middle relievers in lieu of back end Major League starting pitchers. But with the popularity of 5x5 and the inclusion of strikeouts which favors starters, this strategy was not as viable. As suggested, the 5x5 format actually lends itself to a wider variety of strategies, which is probably why the style has become more favorable.
No matter what the mix of starters, closers and middle relievers you choose to incorporate, it has always been advantageous to minimize what you spend on pitching, mostly due to the inherent risk associated with pitchers (both performance and health related) plus history has taught us that more in-season useful pitching is available for pick-up than hitting. Doing the math, in deep AL only leagues like Tout Wars and LABR, 12 teams draft 9 pitchers for a total of 108. Assume each team carries at least two pitchers on reserve and you get 132 drafted pitchers. The 14 AL teams average about 11 pitchers, yielding 132 out of 154 or so pitchers rostered. That means about 9 pitchers per AL team are on a fantasy squad. In 4x4, the leftover pitchers are probably the lowest-end starters while in 5x5, they are likely the volatile middle relievers. This means a lot of teams have some pretty questionable pitching on their roster.
We, at then Mastersball, now www.FantasyBaseball.com have long championed a 5x5 strategy whereby you do not chase saves, but concentrate on starting pitchers to build up the wins and strikeouts, but using pitchers the quality of which will allow you to fare decently in the ratios. Perhaps you pick up an undervalued or speculative closer or look to acquire saves by available means during the season. It does not take much in terms of ratios to jump up the standings when so much poor pitching has to be active on a roster. Thus, if you are adept at identifying cheap yet effective starting pitcher, like my associate and Mastersball founder Jason Grey, you can enjoy some serious success with the strategy – say like winning back to back Tout Wars titles followed by a LABR championship.
It was just shown how the plan can work in deep leagues. It is also quite effective in very shallow leagues, like a 12-team mixed. The same 132 or so pitchers are drafted, but in a mixed league the pool is about 330 deep. Instead of 9 or 10 pitchers per MLB team being drafted, only 4 or 5 are drafted in the shallow league. Assuming the closer of each team is taken along with a handful of the better set up men, that means there are several starters available throughout the season available for pickup, some of which will be quite effective. You can use this to construct an effective staff on the cheap.
While I am not quite as adept at turning over a stone and uncovering a useful arm as my compatriot Jason, I have used the strategy successfully as well so I decided to use the analogous ploy in the NFBC, which is passing on the top tiers of pitching and looking for the undervalued hurlers later, along with supplementation as the season progresses. What I have learned is you better nail the cheap staff at the draft, as there is significantly less opportunity to fix it up than I am used to in either the extremely deep or very shallow leagues.
The reason for the paucity of useful pitching available to FAAB can be seen by examining the pool penetration of the NFBC. The 15 teams draft nine active guys plus several on reserve, amounting to about 200 of the possible 330 taken. That is 6 or 7 per MLB team. Figuring the closer and top set-up man is selected, that means 4 or 5 more per MLB team have to go. Some will be relievers, but the vast majority will be starters. Those left are obviously left for a reason.
Recall that in shallow leagues, the reason waiting for pitching can work is there is ample reinforcement waiting in the wings. This is not the case in the NFBC as just illustrated. Now recall that the concept is effective in deep leagues because the distribution of the ratios is such that one or two diamonds in the rough can elevate your placement significantly. Again, this is not true in the NFBC as the quality of available pitching is nowhere near useful enough to affect the standings to any serious degree.
So here’s the conundrum. Do you roll the dice and wait on pitching, hoping to assemble a staff of quality arms knowing there is no safety net, that if you choose poorly, there is little you can do to compensate? Or do you hedge your bet a bit by anchoring your staff with an early round pick, giving yourself a cushion to absorb a bad performance or two down the line?
That is where I am at – deciding whether I need to consider pitchers earlier than I have done in the past. The trade off is still being able to piece together an offense to compete. I wonder if the answer might be taking a pitcher earlier than normal while making up for the lost offense by choosing a couple of high risk, high reward bats?
Hmmm.
[ January 31, 2007, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]
Recent archive:
1-15 Whither an Expert
_______________________________________________________
As mentioned last week, today I will discuss a couple of aspects of my NFBC strategy that need improvement. The first was actually nailed by board regular Chest Rockwell when he correctly suggested my game is devoid of some necessary calculated risk. The second is the manner I have approached pitching.
In the auction format, each team gets $260 to buy their team. If you convert rotisserie points to value, the winning team usually amasses between $320 and $330. Solid money management focusing upon low-risk players is my usual modus operandi. If I am on my game and adjust to the ebb and flow of an auction, I will buy considerably more than $260 worth of talent which usually includes taking some chances with fungible players in the end-game. With sage use of FAAB and clever roster management, the Yoohoo shower is readily attainable.
Transposing this philosophy to drafting, my standard operating procedure has been to build a solid foundation with low risk players and take my chances with the back end of my lineup and reserves. Instead of using solid money management to accrue profit, I assumed proper ranking of players combined with knowing their ADP and taking them at the right time would generate profit. I would always make sure I had open spots in the outfield and corner to pick up the plethora of valuable players inevitably on the board late.
With respect to the ability to gain profit, there is a significant difference between the two entities. In an auction, one can gain a distinct advantage by avoiding inflated prices while accumulating a roster of under priced producers. In a draft, the field is leveled by the serpentine nature of picking players. The distribution of talent is much flatter. The degree of separation is less in a draft.
So the question I am pondering is should I attempt to find mid-draft profit by taking some chances on players with some degree of risk associated with their performance? This could be a means to distance myself from the pack. Obviously the catch is this distance can go in either direction.
I recently partook in a draft for a real league that mirrors the NFBC format and in fact was formed in part to be used as an NFBC dress rehearsal for many of its participants. I entered the draft with the mindset of taking chances. I even named my team Risky Business and hired Rebecca DeMorney to be my co-manager. Round-by-round analysis will be available for those smart enough to invest a few of their dollars over at www.FantasyBaseball.com but one nugget I will share is I learned you cannot just blindly enter a draft and plan to take chances. You need to identify those players you consider to be risky and then make sure you have the available roster spot and statistical need when it comes the appropriate time to choose them. It also helps to know their ADP, just like any other player. I will be doing at least two more NFBC satellites to see if I can teach this old dog a couple of newer, riskier tricks.
Believe it or not, it was not all that long ago that 4x4 leagues were the dominant format. Obviously, 5x5 has taken over as the primary scoring style. With this change has come a revised, actually more varied manner in which the wise rotisserie player approaches pitching. In 4x4, ratios are half the points and one category correlates quite well to the other, so it is really only common sense to design a strategy that excels in ratios. The primary means to that end was the deployment of skilled middle relievers in lieu of back end Major League starting pitchers. But with the popularity of 5x5 and the inclusion of strikeouts which favors starters, this strategy was not as viable. As suggested, the 5x5 format actually lends itself to a wider variety of strategies, which is probably why the style has become more favorable.
No matter what the mix of starters, closers and middle relievers you choose to incorporate, it has always been advantageous to minimize what you spend on pitching, mostly due to the inherent risk associated with pitchers (both performance and health related) plus history has taught us that more in-season useful pitching is available for pick-up than hitting. Doing the math, in deep AL only leagues like Tout Wars and LABR, 12 teams draft 9 pitchers for a total of 108. Assume each team carries at least two pitchers on reserve and you get 132 drafted pitchers. The 14 AL teams average about 11 pitchers, yielding 132 out of 154 or so pitchers rostered. That means about 9 pitchers per AL team are on a fantasy squad. In 4x4, the leftover pitchers are probably the lowest-end starters while in 5x5, they are likely the volatile middle relievers. This means a lot of teams have some pretty questionable pitching on their roster.
We, at then Mastersball, now www.FantasyBaseball.com have long championed a 5x5 strategy whereby you do not chase saves, but concentrate on starting pitchers to build up the wins and strikeouts, but using pitchers the quality of which will allow you to fare decently in the ratios. Perhaps you pick up an undervalued or speculative closer or look to acquire saves by available means during the season. It does not take much in terms of ratios to jump up the standings when so much poor pitching has to be active on a roster. Thus, if you are adept at identifying cheap yet effective starting pitcher, like my associate and Mastersball founder Jason Grey, you can enjoy some serious success with the strategy – say like winning back to back Tout Wars titles followed by a LABR championship.
It was just shown how the plan can work in deep leagues. It is also quite effective in very shallow leagues, like a 12-team mixed. The same 132 or so pitchers are drafted, but in a mixed league the pool is about 330 deep. Instead of 9 or 10 pitchers per MLB team being drafted, only 4 or 5 are drafted in the shallow league. Assuming the closer of each team is taken along with a handful of the better set up men, that means there are several starters available throughout the season available for pickup, some of which will be quite effective. You can use this to construct an effective staff on the cheap.
While I am not quite as adept at turning over a stone and uncovering a useful arm as my compatriot Jason, I have used the strategy successfully as well so I decided to use the analogous ploy in the NFBC, which is passing on the top tiers of pitching and looking for the undervalued hurlers later, along with supplementation as the season progresses. What I have learned is you better nail the cheap staff at the draft, as there is significantly less opportunity to fix it up than I am used to in either the extremely deep or very shallow leagues.
The reason for the paucity of useful pitching available to FAAB can be seen by examining the pool penetration of the NFBC. The 15 teams draft nine active guys plus several on reserve, amounting to about 200 of the possible 330 taken. That is 6 or 7 per MLB team. Figuring the closer and top set-up man is selected, that means 4 or 5 more per MLB team have to go. Some will be relievers, but the vast majority will be starters. Those left are obviously left for a reason.
Recall that in shallow leagues, the reason waiting for pitching can work is there is ample reinforcement waiting in the wings. This is not the case in the NFBC as just illustrated. Now recall that the concept is effective in deep leagues because the distribution of the ratios is such that one or two diamonds in the rough can elevate your placement significantly. Again, this is not true in the NFBC as the quality of available pitching is nowhere near useful enough to affect the standings to any serious degree.
So here’s the conundrum. Do you roll the dice and wait on pitching, hoping to assemble a staff of quality arms knowing there is no safety net, that if you choose poorly, there is little you can do to compensate? Or do you hedge your bet a bit by anchoring your staff with an early round pick, giving yourself a cushion to absorb a bad performance or two down the line?
That is where I am at – deciding whether I need to consider pitchers earlier than I have done in the past. The trade off is still being able to piece together an offense to compete. I wonder if the answer might be taking a pitcher earlier than normal while making up for the lost offense by choosing a couple of high risk, high reward bats?
Hmmm.
[ January 31, 2007, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]
Either way, I like it. Thanks again and sorry about the loss yesterday.