The Top Four...Till They're Not

[Money]

Mr Quahog,

We may have to get you your own permanent thread. Keep it going guys this is good stuff!!

[DOUGHBOYS]

Agree Steve,
And there may have been a couple forgotten:

The 'this player looks better on my bench than that guy'
This is when your starting lineup is flush. Scott Cousins was sent down and he was a 'just in caser' for speed. Now droppable.
Mastrianni has been hanging around on the wire. He isn't starting yet, but he looks a lot better on our bench than Cousins.
A 'ya never know' pickup that could make us look smart.

CIW
Most real CIW or backup Closers ( I love that term) are already rostered throughout the league.
The true CIW is taken for very little money. Like taking Cishek when seeing signs of Heath Bell faltering.

I agree with Steve about the luck in who we get in our bids. Last year I 'lost out' on two or three shortstops for more money and had to 'settle' for Josh Rutledge. Somehow, if we stay true to our bids, most things will work out.

[OaktownSteve]

I agree with Steve about the luck in who we get in our bids. Last year I 'lost out' on two or three shortstops for more money and had to 'settle' for Josh Rutledge. Somehow, if we stay true to our bids, most things will work out.

This is good stuff, guys. Pleasure to be part of the conversation. I want to address the notion of luck. Bad owners are fond of saying "it's all luck anyway." So how is it that the same fantasy players seem to get lucky year after year? It's unlikely and that's why I like to dig into this stuff and see if I can figure out what's going on.

One thing I know from years of experience playing fantasy and also from some data crunching is that one of the strongest correlations to team success in fantasy is the total number of in season transactions. The obvious assumption, and a good one, is that more transactions means that your are keeping your roster filled with active players and IPs and ABs are important. But what if a high volume of transactions actually means that you're increasing your odds of landing more productive players? I think what I am about to say is very much in keeping with what Mr. Jupinka says a couple of posts back.

Let's suppose that there are a certain number of players in the FA pool every year who will end up being productive fantasy assets. We'll call those good players "X". Some subset of X players are players who suddenly become fantasy assets with no warning. In other words, there is no real scouting or statistical evidence that predicts their success. Owning them at any particular point is ostensibly luck, not skill...or is it?

Now for each team that is participating in FAAB, the higher number of players that move through your roster, the more number of players in the X category you'll have on your roster at some point during the season. In other words, you can't own a player X if he never hits your roster.

But there is another function here and that is time. Not only do you have to own player X, you have to own him at such a time that his performance starts to demonstrate that he may be a longer term fantasy asset. So when you look at it strictly from a time component, the longer you own a player, the more likely you are to recognize him as a player in the X pool.

So is it better to buy and hold or to churn and burn? Well neither strategy will be right every time, because there is a luck factor and both methods can yield results. But what we're looking for here is just that small edge. Is there a tactic that can make us appear luckier than the next guy?

Let's take the case of buy and hold. Let's say that you pick up a player and hold him for the whole year, hoping each week that he'll become a player in the X category. If that player is not destined to become productive,two things happen: the longer you hold him waiting, the more weeks you have without production and the more opportunity cost there is for all the players that you are not shuttling through your roster to in search of an X. And in the end, that player ultimately never returns an investment. Now obviously what happens is that you cut bait on the guy and dump him. But retroactively you realize that you would have been best off to dump him after the very first week. It's a compounding badness. The longer it goes on the worse the cost. But more importantly, the longer a player is bad in the course of a season, the greater the chance that they will stay bad. And it's possible that we can reduce that calculus to just one or two weeks.

Let me put it this way. If a player is going to be good, they are going to have to be good week after week. Before a player can be good for two weeks in a row, he has to be good for one. Before he can be good three weeks in a row, he has to be good for two. If you have a player who has a lousy week, then you're resetting the number of good weeks in a row at zero.

There are definitely other factors. Luck, awareness of playing time and injuries. But I also think there is a subtle economic model at work here that can yield an edge and that is, cut bait fast, more volume, more transactions yields not only better counting stats, but also can net better players. I'm not sure I adequately demonstrated it here, but I kind of feel it in my water that there's something to that mess I just typed up.

[OaktownSteve]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/sport ... d=all&_r=0

Like a lot of the new guys to NFBC, I guess, the NYT article is how I discovered the contest. I point that out only to say that I write what I write with respect and don't presume to know more about the game than a guy who has won it all twice.

Here's a clip from the Fangraphs website going into the 2012 season:

Hundley doesn’t need to hit like he did for the final two month of 2011 to maintain number one status on the team, but if he can show improvement this season and that those last two months weren’t just a fluke, then he could end up being a solid hitting backstop all season and a tremendous late-round fantasy steal.

The Padres agreed, giving Hundley a 3 year contract. In looking at Mr. Hinkelman's teams over the years, it's clear that one of his great strengths is evaluating talent. He's got an incredible knack for drafting players about to break out, not just at the end of the draft, but finding guys in the early to mid-rounds who become first round players. Watching a ton of baseball will do that. And it makes sense that he's going to buy and hold the guys he picked. In reviewing his style, he has had many fewer in season changes in his starting lineups than I saw looking at Mr. Jupinka's teams.

But here's what Nick Hundley did the first three months of the season:
April: 15-69 6 runs, 2 hrs, 11 rbi
May: 9-73 3 runs 1 hr, 5 rbi
June 8-51 5 runs 0 hr 6 rbi

Hundley was in Mr. Hinkelman's line up every week until July 1. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations give a rough idea that he could have moved up 50 or so points in the overall (into the top 10) with just a replacement level catcher, and had he hit on Willin Rosario, he might have had top 5 potential yet again.

Hundley is just one example and it's hard to know to what degree the buy and hold method has been part of Mr. Hinkelman's success. Perhaps the benefit accrued from keeping faith in his players outweighs the downside of a few misses like Hundley. Nevertheless, it's hard to think that after a May in which he hit .123 with 3 runs, 1 homer and 5 rbis that there wasn't more than enough reason to cut him loose.

I guess if there's one thing to be learned here if nothing else, it's that knowing when to cut bait can be tough even for the very best of fantasy owners.

[Edwards Kings]

Definitely not Top Four...

Hi. I am Wayne Edwards. I am an ADP-oholic. I am not repenting, just confessing. I love ADP's. They give you so much information. And to those that say ADP's are worthless to showing value and that they "ignore" ADP's...



I just do not believe people who say they ignore ADP's or don't use them. It is like ADP's have become some sort of nasty contemptable habit.

"Honey, what are you doing?"
"Watching some internet porn."
"Thank goodness...I thought you were looking at ADP's again!"

At their best, ADP's let you know the opportunity cost of the players you pick (i.e. if I pick Joe Shlabotnik in the 3rd, there is a 60/40 chance Sidd Finch will be there in the 4th!), and at the least gives you fun nuggets to ponder.

Which is why I started this mini-tirade here. On the other end of the draft from the Top Four, per the latest NFBC ADP that I looked at (20 completed drafts after March 1st), how many starting pitchers from the Houston, Miami, and Minnesota combined staffs were represented (nearly 400 players who were drafted in at least six of the drafts)?

Two. Worley and Norris, both ADP in excess of the 300th round.

It is going to be tough to be an Astro, Marlin, or Twinkie fan this year.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It is going to be tough to be an Astro, Marlin, or Twinkie fan this year.

See!?!
This is the line from somebody hooked on adp.
These teams will have a long year because they don't have a pitcher in adp pre-season.
WHAT?!
That's not important! Let me know how many they have AFTER the year!

Last year, the Orioles highest ranked starter was outside of the top 400 picks.
They had a wonderful season.
This year, they have five pitchers within their team inside the top 400 and none of these pitchers were traded for.
It's stupid to follow adp. It just is.
Sure, the Astro's, Marlins, and Twins may have long years, but to use adp as the indicator for that is just outright silly.



ADP is only a comglomeration of opinions from folks who have played in the 50 round drafts. They're not even basing their picks on 30 rounds like we will in Big Drafts.
I know I draft differently in 50's. For that reason alone, adp's are tainted.
Plus, we had a gazillion new to the NFBC drafters this year. This isn't an NFBC adp as much as it is a public forum adp.
That's right. The Yahoo Kid's voice is heard and so is that radio caller who asks if he should trade Trout for Revere and Viciedo.

Believe me, Wayne, that adp is of little use to me when we draft in a couple of weeks. You may use it as a crutch, but I guarantee you, somebody will kick that crutch from underneath you in a couple of weeks at the Main.

And you know what the absolute worst part of adp is?
If looking at it long enough, you begin to doubt your own instincts. You begin to think, well who am I to think that Nick Markakis should be taken two rounds earlier than ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE. And subconsciously, Markakis starts trending towards the sheep.
Bah.
We didn't have adp when the NFBC started. We drafted with our own gut, our own instincts. Untainted in what others thought.
I try to keep it that way.

[Edwards Kings]

Baltimore 2012! Thanks for proving my point!

True, Chen did end up bring decent value, though it was certainly no guarantee that his Chunichi Dragon pedigree would play well in the AL East.

After that? If memory and notes serve, Matusz? No thank you. Arrieta? Nope. Hunter? Not me. Hammel? Ok until injured though nothing he had done previously in Colorado gave any indication of usefulness regardless of his ADP.

At the time of the Main Event drafts, that was it. So the ADP missed on Chen, but nailed the rest. How would you like an 80% success rate on your tools. And that is really my point...as a tool ADP's from the NFBC are as useful as a pair of channel locks in your kit. Not the last word, but very useful.

And I still think Baltimore did it with mirrors and will play hell repeating!

[Edwards Kings]

Oops!

[DOUGHBOYS]

I don't get how I proved your point.
Are you saying that adp is smart?
If they were THAT smart, then we'd consistently have no misses. Trout wouldn't have been at the bottom of a draft one year and at the top the next.
ADP was not correct on Baltimore. This year, all their pitchers have moved up and yet you say they did it with mirrors. If that's true, wouldn't ADP be wrong last year AND this year if Baltimore indeed fails?

ADP is only public opinion. 110 50 round drafts makes for over 12,000 opinions. When we get to the Main Event, it'll be only the 420 opinions there that count and the ADP's of those in 50 round drafts will not be even a notion in most of those drafters minds.

Just one more thought and this pertains to a 50 round draft earlier in the year. I was in a draft with Blah Blah. This was before the Justin Upton trade. We were in the late 20's round of our draft when a RotoWorld blurb came out about Evan Gattis. It stated that Gattis could be given a shot at left field if the Braves do not trade for Upton.
Blah Blah took him a lot sooner than he would have otherwise gone. I think he took him in the early 30's. I have respect for this drafter, so I needled him a bit in being a RotoWorld sheep. He explained that since that blurb came out, he had to beat the sheep since Gattis was a player coveted by him.
I can see using adp in this way. We're talking of a 50 round drafter talking of a player who will most likely only be taken in 50 round drafts. And, he wants the player and is willing to overdraft him, which is what some of us do when favoring a player. That I can see.

What I can't see is Ben Zobrist being as valuable to a 30 team league in the Main as he would to one of these 50 round teams. Positionality is always important, but more so to 50 rounders without FAAB than 30 rounder with faab. Zobrist can cover injuries in a 50 rounder. In a 30 rounder, he can be moved, but FAAB becomes the crutch there for injury.
Or Matt Carpenter. He is being taken in the late teens and early 20's. With 1b,3b,of positionality, and a ppossible shot at 2b, he could be worth the pick in a 50.
If he loses the 2b job, he becomes a man with a lot of positionality and little playing time, which relegates him to the FAAB junk heap in a 30 round league.
It's not an apples to oranges comparison.
It's more like lemon-lime to lime. The drafters may be sub-par and so may the techniques between a 50 round and 30 round draft.
There's just enough of a variance for me to not trust it. And if I don't trust it, I don't use it.
Apparently, it makes for great radio fodder though

[Edwards Kings]

I don't get how I proved your point. Are you saying that adp is smart?

Not really. I am saying that ADP can help identify opportunity costs. I will use your Trout analogy. For all the anti-ADPers who just KNEW Trout was going to be big, why didn't they just go ahead and draft him in the 1st round last year? Two reasons. One, they didn't have to because they knew he was not going until much later so why leave other desirable talent on the table. And two, there were all those other guys they KNEW were going to be big, but didn't.

ADP was not correct on Baltimore. This year, all their pitchers have moved up and yet you say they did it with mirrors. If that's true, wouldn't ADP be wrong last year AND this year if Baltimore indeed fails?

I was speaking of their starting pitchers, but it wasn't their starting pitching that won it for them. It was their shut down closer (Jim Johnson...you know that ace closer with the whopping 5.4 k/9 ratio), their bats (consistent stalwarts like Mark Reynolds and Chris Davis, healthy Brian Roberts and Nick Markakis, overachieving Wilson Betemit), and mirrors.

But you say the starters for Baltimore last year when we were drafting last year have moved up? Matuszless? Hunter? Arrieta? Hammel (currently at 268 is up I guess)? Chen (321...strong)?

And besides, how do you know if they are moving up if you are not following ADP's?

ADP is only public opinion. 110 50 round drafts makes for over 12,000 opinions. When we get to the Main Event, it'll be only the 420 opinions there that count and the ADP's of those in 50 round drafts will not be even a notion in most of those drafters minds.

Agreed. And many of those 420 follow ADP's so isn't at least good to know what some of your opposition is thinking?

Different strokes, I guess, and you have been more successful in these events than me. Still, love me some ADP!

At least give me one thing...ADP's are really good when you want to drive your wife crazy? "Honey, you wouldn't believe who is moving up in the drafts!"

Can't wait to watch Gattis in AAA this year!

[DOUGHBOYS]

We may be talking semantics. I have a pretty good idea of where everybody should go. Maybe that's my own personal adp thought as it applies to everybody else.
Trout did not go in the first round because he didn't NEED to go in the first round. If somebody feels the same way about Kolten Wong stealing 60 bases this year, that drafter knows, both common sensicly (shuddup spellchecker and adp be it in his head or on paper, that he doesn't need to draft Wong high.

Personally, I laugh at the red/green numbers indicated on the adp stats page. The same as I laugh at XM quoting an adp for every player mentioned. It's generally good for the NFBC and out group as a whole.
It's just not good for me at the drafting table.

[headhunters]

dough- are you telling me you and nfbc won't be sending me a check for my + 500 greenies in the premature draft? i was gonna use that to enter some more leagues.

[DOUGHBOYS]

dough- are you telling me you and nfbc won't be sending me a check for my + 500 greenies in the premature draft? i was gonna use that to enter some more leagues.

In the Pre-Mature, I'd be proud of those greenies. You led the way. First greenies are better than last greenies any time.

[headhunters]

kiss of death and you know it.

[DOUGHBOYS]

kiss of death and you know it.

You ain't wrong! I've got a lot of greenies too.