Ch ch ch changes.......

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » 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 ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:39 am

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?

I think there is an answer to this but it differs from year to year. While every draft is different, you get an idea of what you are headed into based on the dynamics that seem to be in play that year. But from year to year, draft dynamics change quite a bit. For example, saying you should go with some speed early seemed prudent last year, but as a hard and fast rule, it doesn't seem as important now.

Depending on the kind of offense you think you can get early in a 2007 draft and the kind of pitching you think you can get later, you then make a decision on whether to switch around one of those picks from hitting to pitching. But the answer is not universal for everyone and it's certainly not universal from year to year.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:19 am

I think it depends on what your goal is. If you want to win the overall you need to determine how you will address all 10 categories, and will definitely need to take some chances. However, the earlier and more chances you take, the more likley your chances of running yourself out of a chance to place 1st-3rd in your league.

I am sure that if someone did an analysis on the 3 overall winners, there were some huge risks in their drafts. One could even argue some of these players simply fell (to them) in the drafts. However, if you were to analyze the strategies of the 55 league winners' drafts, I would think that the majority had a very clear strategy and that the size of the risks they took grew larger as the rounds of the draft went by. Of course this is all just a theory.

I just can't imagine someone taking a huge risk in the early rounds on certain types of players: the downside of that risk is just too big. The other thing to note regarding taking risks...risks taken are usually on a player you have researched high and low on and go after. They are usually not a player that has fallen in the draft that you think is the best value remaining: some of those guys you just don't touch regardless of how far they have dropped. Especially if you haven't researched them.

As for my personal opinion on Starting Pitching: you need 1-2 quailty SP's in rounds 6-10, another 2 in round 11-15, and another 3 in rounds 16-22. Rounds 1-5 risk/reward profiles just aren't worth it in my opinion at that position.

And as for picking up quality pitching on the FAAB: there are certainly some to be had.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:31 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

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. Another great blog, Todd.

I see your last question as addressing early focus (increase emphasis on pitching as opposed to hitting) and less about altering your risk/reward composure. What I mean is, the choosing of a few more pitchers early and using the middle rounds to beef up your offense (i.e. those OF and CM you were talking about) is no more or less risky (to me) than concentrating on offense first and getting good middle tier pitchers in the middle.

When I think risk, especially in pitching, I think going with arms that have the potential to be special, but do not have the track record/health to be in the Santana/Oswalt/Carpenter tier yet (Hamels, Matsuzaka, Kazmir, Sheets) as opposed to other arms with proven track records, but might not crack the super elite status (Sabathia, Schmidt, Mussina, Garcia).

Don't get me wrong, this second group is awesome, but they probably will not get you that 200k, 3.25 ERA, 1.15 WHIP. Maybe that is where the "edge" at being a little (very?) risky can be obtained.

[ January 22, 2007, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:46 am

Todd, you either wrote all that before your beloved Patriots fell in the second half at Indy or you were so peeved about that loss that you totally indulged into baseball analysis this morning!

Either way, I like it. Thanks again and sorry about the loss yesterday.

Tell Jason I'd stop drinking for a year if he actually went into one LABR Draft this year and spent more than 35% of his budget on pitching!!!

On second thought, that's too harsh a penalty for me!

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:17 am

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

the Santana/Oswalt/Carpenter tier Santana has a tier all to himself, no?

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:48 am

Great read. It seems to me the question you are pondering is whether to go after a top level pitcher in the 1st four rounds. In past years, I looked at how the league winners constructed their teams in the first four rounds. I have posted it here. Unfortunately, Greg was unable to locate the detailed draft results I wanted. It looks like they went to byte-heaven. The ADPs just isn't any good for this analysis. Your question is one I have been considering and in my several satelitte leagues, I will try a couple of diffeent styles.

The only area of your "blog" that I had trouble with was you having Rebecca DeMorney by your side at the draft.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:53 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

the Santana/Oswalt/Carpenter tier Santana has a tier all to himself, no? [/QUOTE]Yes, but hopefully stretching the tier just a bit helped make the point.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:14 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

I just can't imagine someone taking a huge risk in the early rounds on certain types of players: the downside of that risk is just too big. you are in the majority. it's like in poker, many people are afraid to make a big bluff.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:14 pm

I'll throw a few potential early round names out there that as of Jan. 20, I consider to have some degree of risk, be it performance or injury related.

Alfonso Soriano, Ryan Howard, Mark Teixeira, Derrek Lee and Jose Reyes.

If it is my turn, and I have one of these guys as my top-rated player on the board, I'm not sure I would pull the trigger. And this is after likely downgrading their projection due to risk in the first place. So what this means is the highest player on my board should actually be rated even higher, and I am still hesitant to call their name.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:21 pm

Todd agree with all but TEIXERA, his 2nd half numbers were great.Is there an injury factor with him im not aware of.AND he is only 26.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:28 pm

Todd, why are you afraid of Reyes? He has to be the only one who scares you. A hamstring will ruin his value....Why rated him the highest? He goes for $45 in the NL....Is he worth more there?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:50 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

If it is my turn, and I have one of these guys as my top-rated player on the board, I'm not sure I would pull the trigger. And this is after likely downgrading their projection due to risk in the first place. So what this means is the highest player on my board should actually be rated even higher, and I am still hesitant to call their name. I go thru exactly this each year as well. I have yet to see, from past results, that history is definitively on the side of either a) my projections, or b) my gut ... so I suppose I can look forward to more of the same.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 pm

With the fact I said SOME degree of risk in mind...

Teixeira -- his second half numbers were great, but his first half numbers were lousy. Should we look at last year as a whole, ignore the splits and say he is closer in value to Manny Ramirez or should we look at his potential and rank him about where we rank Ortiz or Howard? That said, I don't consider Teixeira to be a HUGE risk, actually a rather small one. But let's say he and Manny are both on the board. Tex has the higher ceiling but I know, I just know I am going to get .310-38-120 out or Manny. Do I roll the rice to get an extra 10 knocks from Tex?

Reyes -- I am over the injury risk stigma. The risk with Reyes is his performance. It is no secret we had him #1 overall last season in terms of earnings. I'm guessing he will be right near the top of our projections when they come out. But he does not have a history of producing at that level. Does he have the potential? Of course. Add in the fact that much of his production relies on his ability to keep befuddling the sabermetric crowd and hit .300 with his lack of patience and still low (but improving) walk rate. Less hits means less SB, runs and RBI. Say I have the #2 pick and Pujols is gone. Do I play it safe and take ARod (whom I think is fine) or do I shoot the moon with Reyes? Actually, I know the answer -- it is Reyes, but I also know the still brown, not yet grey hair on my head will start to lighten just a bit.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:36 pm

TODD, Manny also took off 6 weeks just because he felt like.Teixera plays hard every year and plays every game. Manny is 34 AND TEX is 26 , wouldnt you say Manny is more of an injury risk.

Manny is someone i wont own in all the 10 leagues im in.Tex is somebody i will take in any league.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:36 pm

TODD, Manny also took off 6 weeks just because he felt like.Teixera plays hard every year and plays every game. Manny is 34 AND TEX is 26 , wouldnt you say Manny is more of an injury risk.

Manny is someone i wont own in all the 10 leagues im in.Tex is somebody i will take in any league.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:45 pm

Maybe Manny wasn't the best example because as Eddie points out, there is risk associated with his selection. Maybe Berkman is better, but even he is a slight risk as he only performed at that elite level last season.

Again, the risk with Teixeira is not huge. But if you look at his 3-year averages, the delta associated with the numbers is larger than others in the same class.

And being a Red Sox fan, I still am giving mulligans to anyone associated with breaking the 86-year old jinx, so I say Manny was really hurt

[ January 22, 2007, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:04 pm

When I mentioned Risk (in my earlier post) regarding the early rounds, I meant something more along the lines of grabbing a projected middle of the 3rd round player in the middle of the 2nd round. Another words projecting something substantially more than what the rest of us project.

I would like to think the average spot where players are being drafted are based on their average projections and the league specifics(well, approximately). So risk can be you projecting something that makes them jump about 15 picks. The other assumption is that the average projections already assume the players' inherent risks (ie injury, playing time, etc). So Reyes over Howard or ARod over Soriano to me is not taking Risk.

[ January 22, 2007, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:56 pm

I may be drunk...but...

My GUT says Mark Teixeira has career .266 avg. written all over him. He also LOOKS like a user of roids.

~Lance

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:28 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

I'll throw a few potential early round names out there that as of Jan. 20, I consider to have some degree of risk, be it performance or injury related.

Alfonso Soriano, Ryan Howard, Mark Teixeira, Derrek Lee and Jose Reyes.

If it is my turn, and I have one of these guys as my top-rated player on the board, I'm not sure I would pull the trigger. And this is after likely downgrading their projection due to risk in the first place. So what this means is the highest player on my board should actually be rated even higher, and I am still hesitant to call their name. I have a question for Todd and would welcome anybody that wants to chime in since most seem to agrre with his opinion, specifically on D.Lee. What risk are we talking about? till last year he's never benn on the dl. He has improved every year the last several except last year. he came back too soon and stunk. He came back the second time after proper rest and rehab and looked like the same old D. Lee until his daughter was diagnosed with a rare disease. If you saw him in 2005 he is a differant hitter than he was early in his career. Don't pitch him inside anymore. Long arms or not he's learned to turn on the pitch and hit it about 10 blocks. That D. Lee looked back to me. In the mag draft I took him and 3 of 5 that graded my team said he was my worst pick. I've talked it over with another guy from Chi and he doesn't understand "what risk" either. Somebody help me or I'm doomed to pick him for real.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:11 pm

vander,

Where did you pick him (#) and how many teams in the draft? I can only think that the critics believe you drafted him too early. The other possibility is that D.Lee has a long history of disappointing people (relative to his pre-season projections).

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:41 pm

Vander, if you are expecting a repeat of 2005 for D.Lee, in all likelihood you are going to be disappointed.

To be fair, Lee would probably provide decent value as a mid- to late 2nd round pick. However, as a late 1st/early 2nd round pick, there are others who will almost certainly outperform him, making him a somewhat poor selection.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:23 pm

We may actually be on the same page, it all depends on your expectation. I'm not worried about the wrist. Early on his return, as expected, his power was down, but just before he cut his season even shorter to be with his duaghter, he looked fine. My concern is with performance, living up to the level from 2006. I would have labeled him as risky with respect to his ADP last season. That was quite a jump in performance. Though I have heard tell of hit charts where if you were to overlay a season of his balls in play when in Florida over Wrigley Field, the layout was even more favorable for where Lee hits the ball than expected.

My FantasyBaseball.com partner Perry Van Hook, aka the Captain, has taken DLee mid second round in a couple of drafts. I think that's fine.

That said, because there are a bevy of younger, rising first baseman available later, I am shying away from using up the 1B spot early.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:25 pm

Vander, would you consider a season like this out of D.Lee ? .286 35hr 102rbi 101r 11sb ?? Not a stretch considering his '05 season of .335 46hr 120rbi 15 sb. Well those were actually J.Bay's #'s in '06. The overall #3 and #4 teams both drafted him 1.09 and 1.11. If you get that from your 1st player taken then that's good enough. You get that from your 2nd player taken then that's just as jim dandy.

Q

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:38 pm

Thanks for the replies so far. keep them coming. To answer some of the questions, I took him either 1-15 or 2-1 doesn't really matter with back to back picks and my expectations are slightly better than those of Bays 2006. I think 300, 35 hr's, 15 sb's, 100 r's and 100+ rbi. Is this out of whack and who's better at that point?