Slow and Steady vs Risk and Upside

[Spyhunter]

All,

I have been studying the winning teams of the NFBC and it seems to me that the concept of 'I must take risky upside players to win' is just off. It looks like to me that the winning teams tend to have very reliable players who just do their job. They are augmented by a few upside surprises but not nearly as much as I would have guessed. I personally would have thought that to stand out in 300 or 330 teams, you have to draft allot more players that over acheive, but instead it seems like the better strategy is to avoid the high risk/high upside players and build a huge basis of vets with just a few upside guys.



What does everyone else think?



I also noticed that people tend to take risk (i.e. pitchers/high upside hitting prospects) much earlier in the Satellites than people do in the real high $ events. This means to me that the feedback I gather from participating in the Satellites must be taken with a huge grain of salt. To give a personal example, in the satellites last year, Felix Hernandez was taken as early as the 3rd round and always by the start of the 5th. So in the main event, when I saw him available in the middle of the 5th, I jumped, instead of taking Thome who I had planned to take. I did the same thing when I saw Hermidia available in the 9th. These idiot moves cost me a 6th place finish instead of a top finish (even though Hanley Ramirez tried to save me single handedly).



Thoughts?



Spy

[poopy tooth]

Spy,



Very interesting. I look at the same type of things (risk v. reward) players. It seems to me, that teams that win, have a couple of these players on their teams. (Morneau, Cuddyer, H. Ramirez come to mind off hand for last year.)



As far as steady players, i think you have a point, but the steady players must stay healthy.



Have you done any analysis on position scarcity when building a foundation? (I think some people are overvaluing Utley this year.) Great player, just not top 10 pick to me. Many will disagree and 2B is somewhat weak, but I would rather have an OF or 1B with better stats in 1st RD (or any other position...I think position scarcity is not as important as most others do. It does let you grab better players later, such as some OF and P's...depending on the draft!

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Spy,



Very interesting. I look at the same type of things (risk v. reward) players. It seems to me, that teams that win, have a couple of these players on their teams. (Morneau, Cuddyer, H. Ramirez come to mind off hand for last year.)



As far as steady players, i think you have a point, but the steady players must stay healthy.



Have you done any analysis on position scarcity when building a foundation? (I think some people are overvaluing Utley this year.) Great player, just not top 10 pick to me. Many will disagree and 2B is somewhat weak, but I would rather have an OF or 1B with better stats in 1st RD (or any other position...I think position scarcity is not as important as most others do. It does let you grab better players later, such as some OF and P's...depending on the draft! To me Utley is top 8, I picked him 16th last year and he never disappointed. Him not being top 10 on someone's board completely befuddles me. To each his own!

[MGBMARTY]

I agree with Chest about Utley being picked at 7 or 8. Position scarcity does count to a degree and when you plug in numbers of 304 106 33 105 18 these are better than most of the outfielders I would equate Utley and M Ordinez in the 8th or 9th round vs Vlad and Kendrick in the 8th or 9th To me like the 1st combo much better.



Marty

[Edwards Kings]

Looking at most projections I have seen, I see Utley as a consistent producer across most offensive categories. How many players do you see that have 25+ HR power, 100+ R and 100+ RBI potential, 10+ steals and the ability to hit .290+. I see only a handful and Utley is one of them.



If you are looking for the 40+ HR banger or the 50+ SB person, the Utley is not your man. If you want to fill out the core of your team with solid four and five category players and pick up "specialists" (i.e. SB or power providers who can help in two or three categories at most) later in the draft, Utley makes an excellent contributor, position scarcity not withstanding.



[ February 26, 2007, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[AmericanDreams]

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Spy,



Very interesting. I look at the same type of things (risk v. reward) players. It seems to me, that teams that win, have a couple of these players on their teams. (Morneau, Cuddyer, H. Ramirez come to mind off hand for last year.)



As far as steady players, i think you have a point, but the steady players must stay healthy.



Have you done any analysis on position scarcity when building a foundation? (I think some people are overvaluing Utley this year.) Great player, just not top 10 pick to me. Many will disagree and 2B is somewhat weak, but I would rather have an OF or 1B with better stats in 1st RD (or any other position...I think position scarcity is not as important as most others do. It does let you grab better players later, such as some OF and P's...depending on the draft! I'd like to pick your brain a little if I may. I have read this line of reasoning before, ie, "I wouldn't pick Utley high because I don't care much about positional scarcity". I would just like to ask, why is it that you don't think positional scarcity is important? Again, I'm not saying anyone is wrong but I'm relatively new at the NFBC format and would like to hear a little more in regards to your line of thinking here. Thanks..



[ February 26, 2007, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: AmericanDreams ]

[sportsbettingman]

Sorry for the side topic...but I'm pissed off, and could use some backing here.



First off...I hate keeper leagues that allow trading for many reasons, but this is a trade that just got accepted in my local league. (The same local league where 4 players trade amoungst themselves...leaving the other 8 owners clueless as to who's "on the block") (12 team league...roto style 5 x 5)



I wake up to see an accepted trade of Barry Zito for Derrek Lee!!!



I posted to veto, and we'll see what happens...but it's not nearly close enough to even TRY to sneak by...more like a slap in the face.



Am I wrong?



~Lance

[poopy tooth]

Here is what I have projected for Utley:



286-112-33-99-15 (in 622 AB's)



Here is what I have projected for Matt Holliday:



301-110-38-126-12 (in 577 AB's)



To me, Holliday is providing more needed stats to get to the totals needed to win the NFBC than Utley is. Both are very good. Utley is the best at his position, Holliday is not.



Utley will go top 10, Holliday will not.



Many people look at position scarcity and place too much weight on it IMHO...



I hear things like, there are dozens of great OF's out there and only a few 2B.



To me, OF is scarce because each team needs 5 at a minimum. Compare your 4th or 5th OF and Utley, with Holliday and your beackend 2B, like Iguchi, Castillo or someone on that level. To me, you make out better by getting every available stat needed towards winning the NFBC.



Some may disagree, but you will need about 80-85% of all available points to win overall. To me, picking less than what is maximum offered on the board places you in a hole, unless you know you can pass on a player and get the same player later.



Just my opinion, and apparently not very popular, but that's fine. To each his own.

[poopy tooth]

Sportsbetting man -



That's why I don't like trade leagues. Too much crap can happen. That trade is fair...if D Lee misses 50 games or so.



Tell the owners to quit the s*it!

[Edwards Kings]

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Here is what I have projected for Utley:



286-112-33-99-15 (in 622 AB's)



Here is what I have projected for Matt Holliday:



301-110-38-126-12 (in 577 AB's)



To me, Holliday is providing more needed stats to get to the totals needed to win the NFBC than Utley is. Both are very good. Utley is the best at his position, Holliday is not.



Utley will go top 10, Holliday will not.



Many people look at position scarcity and place too much weight on it IMHO...



I hear things like, there are dozens of great OF's out there and only a few 2B.



To me, OF is scarce because each team needs 5 at a minimum. Compare your 4th or 5th OF and Utley, with Holliday and your beackend 2B, like Iguchi, Castillo or someone on that level. To me, you make out better by getting every available stat needed towards winning the NFBC.



Some may disagree, but you will need about 80-85% of all available points to win overall. To me, picking less than what is maximum offered on the board places you in a hole, unless you know you can pass on a player and get the same player later.



Just my opinion, and apparently not very popular, but that's fine. To each his own. Good point, but maybe look at it another way. Like you said, Holliday is not going in the top ten and I have been seeing him 6 or 8 places after the turn. There is a good chance you could pick Utley AND Holliday if you picked Utley first. Pick Holliday first, no chance at Utley.



Like anything else, position scarcity is something you HAVE to consider, along with all of the other variables you are considering in drafting a team. Rely to heavily on any one (or ignore one), you will probably leave value on the table.



Dollar values and snake drafts don't mix, but to make one point towards position scarcity, I have about 20% of my top 45 MI having a value of $20 or more, but I have 36% of my Top 90 OF with $20 or more in value. If the opportunity is there, I might sacrifice a few stats straight up between two players (say, favoring a 2B over an OF) and end up with a net gain than if I chose the OF plus a 2B later who promises much less value.



We all do it a little differently....



[ February 26, 2007, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[Spyhunter]

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Spy,



Very interesting. I look at the same type of things (risk v. reward) players. It seems to me, that teams that win, have a couple of these players on their teams. (Morneau, Cuddyer, H. Ramirez come to mind off hand for last year.)



As far as steady players, i think you have a point, but the steady players must stay healthy.



Have you done any analysis on position scarcity when building a foundation? (I think some people are overvaluing Utley this year.) Great player, just not top 10 pick to me. Many will disagree and 2B is somewhat weak, but I would rather have an OF or 1B with better stats in 1st RD (or any other position...I think position scarcity is not as important as most others do. It does let you grab better players later, such as some OF and P's...depending on the draft! Hi PT,

I haven't done the same level of review (i.e. to see if there is a correlation between taking a C or 2B high vs. winning). I will say, that I think that positional scarcity is important, but, not to the extent of taking poor players.



Personally, I see utly as a great player and a first round pick, but I would always take Ortiz (or hafner) over him. The well rounded category killers (reyes, ortiz, etc..) are just more valuable to make up for the positional question. That being said, I have him as as 11-15th round pick. He is a great foundation of 5 categories. I would never take Vlad though before him, though I have seen it happen. Make sense?



Spy

[poopy tooth]

Spy - Yes, makes sense. (Although I do like Vladdy!)



And the other post also does with Utley and Holliday both being picked. (Although it's risky in my opinion.)



Just to further explain, say it's about rd 12 or so, and there are 2 2B left with any value, but 11 OF's left with value. Of the 11, 6 may be better than the 2B, but I would go with the second baseman probably due to the scarcity of the position's value players being off the board. I look at P.S. but after the foundation has been built. I hope that makes some sense.



I'm in a draft Wednesday night and I pick 12th or 13th. I think I should get a player or two that slide to me. Should be interesting.



Also, I do like Utley, I'm not saying I don't, I'm just saying to me, he's not a top 10 pick. I think most who disagree would say it's because of his position that he ranks that high. Move him to OF or 1B and he drops. I just don't look at scarcity in beginning of draft. I hope that makes sense. I only let players fall if I think I can get them in next round. (Or if I had Ortiz in rd 1 and Hafner was sitting in rd2, I'd pass)

[Spyhunter]

Agreed,



do you really like Vlady this year? he is gimping more and more, I don't know. I have him at 100-32-100-9, .320. Good all around but not great. I would rather pick someone who has higher upside in the first round (unless I was picking 14th or 15th). I would rather have Teixera who may not do as well, but has the potential to do much higher - maybe 110-44-130. Or Cabrera who could suddenly turn all those doubles into dingers...



Spy

[sportsbettingman]

The great thing about Vlad is he does this with garbage protecting him...no batting gloves...and what you posted is damn near his low end scenario...he's THAT consistent!



~Lance

[King of Queens]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

The great thing about Vlad is he does this with garbage protecting him...no batting gloves...True, but have you noticed all that pine tar on his batting helmet? Same deal with Orlando Cabrera. I'm surprised baseball hasn't outlawed all that goo...



At least Vladdy doesn't urinate on his hands ala Moises Alou, Jorge Posada, Kerry Wood, etc!

[sportsbettingman]

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Sportsbetting man -



That's why I don't like trade leagues. Too much crap can happen. That trade is fair...if D Lee misses 50 games or so.



Tell the owners to quit the s*it! Just to re-hash this...



I just got off the phone with the commish of the above mentioned league...and quit.



NOT via draft...NOT via grooming minor leaguers...but via TRADES...the #1 team in this league now has the following players...



Vlad

A-Rod

Crawford

Pujols

Johan

Peavy

Doc Halliday

Nathan

(of his 15 keepers)



It became a matter of "fool me once...shame on you...fool me twice...shame on me."



The commish agrees and thinks I'm the only one with the balls and brains to get the heck out and start a mutiny.



Some people will sell their honor for a buck.



~Lance

[bjoak]

Spy, nice thought-provoking thread. I don't necessarily disagree, but would like to see more examples. The F. Hernandez was useful. How about a drafted team of 'reliable veterans' that did well?



Poopy, your post is crap.



You are a smart guy so I'm not trying to s all over your idea , but my projection is for 116 runs, 35 homeruns, 111 RBI's, .288 average, and 15 stolen bases. It's virtually identical to yours. The main difference is probably that I see him healthy and getting 650 at bats. In my scenario, he is the 10th most valuabe player (INDEPENDENT of positional scarcity) by my system. In yours, he is 21st. The point is really that there isn't as much difference between a # 10 and #20 player as we might like to think. That being the case, positional scarcity comes into play. But even if it doesn't, I see him as a top 10. Holliday, by the way, is a bad comparison because he is horribly undervalued . I have been trying to figure out since last season (when I got him in the 6th round in a satellite!) why people just seem to hate him, but I haven't been able to figure that out yet. It works for me!

[poopy tooth]

Poopy, your post is crap.

So I hear!



But seriously, I agree with you in that there is not much difference between 10th and 20th players. One thing to consider is most people in a draft will only be able to pick 1 of the two, depending on where they are slotted, because by the time they get next pick (at least in theory) the other should be chosen. I do look at next grouping when selecting to see who will probably not be back to me when I select. I will still say early in draft, I'm personally not as big on scarcity.



I guess the best way to explain it like this:



I look at winning the NFBC as a puzzle. The winner will need approximately 80-85% of available points. For argument sake, we can use round numbers to illustrate my point.



On the hitting side, say 85% of avialable points leads you to these needs to acquire those points...



avg - 285

runs -1150

hr - 295

rbi - 1125

sb - 175



(I know these figures are not exact, but i'm just using them for argument's sake.)



Now, it's 1st rd, you can chosse between:



Player A - 285 115 20 70 40



Player B - 285 110 45 145 15



If we pretend the avg is weighted the same, with both players get the same amount of AB's, here is a breakdown of how I see it...each category is taking you to a percentage of the total needed to receive 85% of the possible points for that category.



Player A



Runs 115 = 10% of 1150

HR 20 = 6.7% of 295

RBI 70 = 6.2% of 1125

SB 40 = 22.9% of 175



The total percentage this player proivdes in the 4 cat's is 45.8.



Player B



Runs 110 = 9.6% of 1150

HR 45 = 15.3% of 295

RBI 145 = 12.9% of 1125

SB 15 = 8.6 of 175



The total percentage this player provides in the 4 cat's is 46.4.



To me, the 2 are very similar. I would go with player B because he brings you a little closer to what is needed, regardless of position.



Instead of position scarcity, if anything, I would estimate how many steals I could possibly accumulate and if I had to, I'd grab player A and the SB's now.



Batting avg is a little more difficult to figure out, but I weight the AB's by what I project the team total AB's to be, etc.



I know many people disagree with this method, but I used position scarcity in the past and for me, it didn't pan out. Just a new theory I'm trying.



True, it's not the best thing going and I will stray as needed, but IMHO, it's a pretty good baseline.



Oh, 1 more thing for sportsbetting man...



Good! That line up could beat the Yankees. It almost would make me want to stay to try and beat them out of spite, but you did the right thing!

[Chest Rockwell]

bjoak- let him keep thinking Utley is not top 10 and a 12th and a 15th place finish will again be his destiny.



Accomplish something/anything in this event before becoming the professor at the head of the class.

[Nutty Scrats]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Sorry for the side topic...but I'm pissed off, and could use some backing here.



First off...I hate keeper leagues that allow trading for many reasons, but this is a trade that just got accepted in my local league. (The same local league where 4 players trade amoungst themselves...leaving the other 8 owners clueless as to who's "on the block") (12 team league...roto style 5 x 5)



I wake up to see an accepted trade of Barry Zito for Derrek Lee!!!



I posted to veto, and we'll see what happens...but it's not nearly close enough to even TRY to sneak by...more like a slap in the face.



Am I wrong?



~Lance sportsbettingman. I totally see where you're coming from but I think I would have to see when the trade is taking place. If the trade is taking place during the season or after the draft I probably would be against the trade. If the trade happens before the draft I would probably want to know how many keepers each team can keep and how many players would still be available at the draft. If there is stil alot of players still available for the draft I probably wouldn't be against it. Also it may be dependent on where the person who gets Lee is drafting. Now if it is an auction Lee probably comes with a decent salary so it may not make much of a difference. Alot of different parameters weigh in on wether the trade makes sense or not. Just a thought.

[Nutty Scrats]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

quote:Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Sportsbetting man -



That's why I don't like trade leagues. Too much crap can happen. That trade is fair...if D Lee misses 50 games or so.



Tell the owners to quit the s*it! Just to re-hash this...



I just got off the phone with the commish of the above mentioned league...and quit.



NOT via draft...NOT via grooming minor leaguers...but via TRADES...the #1 team in this league now has the following players...



Vlad

A-Rod

Crawford

Pujols

Johan

Peavy

Doc Halliday

Nathan

(of his 15 keepers)



It became a matter of "fool me once...shame on you...fool me twice...shame on me."



The commish agrees and thinks I'm the only one with the balls and brains to get the heck out and start a mutiny.



Some people will sell their honor for a buck.



~Lance [/QUOTE]Lance. I just made it down to this post. A little behind in my reading. LOL That being said I am assuming this is the team that got Lee too? That being said I'm with you on this. With 15 keepers per team the player pool is probably pretty thin going into the draft or auction. What chance do other teams have if one team is stacked from unbalanced trades. I probably would have bailed to.

[poopy tooth]

Chest - never claimed to be professor...just trying something new. We'll see if it works out or not.

[Edwards Kings]

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

quote:Poopy, your post is crap.

So I hear!



Now, it's 1st rd, you can chosse between:



Player A - 285 115 20 70 40



Player B - 285 110 45 145 15



If we pretend the avg is weighted the same, with both players get the same amount of AB's, here is a breakdown of how I see it...each category is taking you to a percentage of the total needed to receive 85% of the possible points for that category.



Player A



Runs 115 = 10% of 1150

HR 20 = 6.7% of 295

RBI 70 = 6.2% of 1125

SB 40 = 22.9% of 175



The total percentage this player proivdes in the 4 cat's is 45.8.



Player B



Runs 110 = 9.6% of 1150

HR 45 = 15.3% of 295

RBI 145 = 12.9% of 1125

SB 15 = 8.6 of 175



The total percentage this player provides in the 4 cat's is 46.4.



To me, the 2 are very similar. I would go with player B because he brings you a little closer to what is needed, regardless of position.



[/QUOTE]But aren't you, in this example, making an excellent case to consider position scacity? What I mean is your projections are within an net contribution of 0.6% (46.4 less 45.8). Surely you recognize that there is more violatility in your projections (violatility equals projections compared to actuals) than 0.6%. In short, these are in essence two equal players with regards to contribution (especially early before the net of the players you drafted shows you may need to enhance power or speed) as their contributions are certainly within the relevant range of projected results. The scarcity of position could serve very well as a "tie-breaker"?



Not challenging your approach, but rather just another point of view!



[ February 28, 2007, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[poopy tooth]

Yeah, in a close situation, I see it as a tie breaker. Was just making a point or trying to. Apparently not a popular opinion, but it's fine.



Yes, I do see these too as close, but I still say there are better players being drafted after Utley, and most of it is based on Utley playing 2B. Different opinions, which is fine. I just do not see him as top 10 pick.

[Quahogs]

Poopy, On your website, how is it you have K.Lofton 2hr 26sb ranked ahead of SS H.Ramirez 14hr 41sb ??



Q