While searching for something to write about tonight I came upon a very interesting thread over at Alex Patton's discussion forum. One of the very experienced players, sas4, wrote that his league spends 80% of its money on hitting and 20% on pitching.
lynchmob, another great player and writer over at the Patton forum, wondered:
Is this "stage 4"?Let's analyze this idea.
I've been playing since 1984 ... and right now, I'm one of the guys "who go for pitching" ... and I haven't won since '98 ... I usually get "enough pitching" to finish in the money ... but I haven't been a contender for the top spot for a long time now ... clearly I need to rethink my positions ...
80%? Ouch, that's seems hard for me to swallow ...
A pure 80/20 split on offense means that each team in this league spends $208 on offense and $52 on pitchers. sas4 is promoting the idea that
We spend 80%+ of our money on hitting. This is a power league. People who go for pitching can win the pitching categories but they never have enough offense.I do agree with this rationale to a point. However, I don't think that this idea in and of itself represents Stage 4.
I can agree that spending more money on hitting increases your chances of finishing higher in hitting overall. The idea is that hitters, as a general rule, are far more predictable than pitchers on the whole. If you spend $175 on offense, you're very likely to get back $175 in value. Therefore, if you spend $208 of offense, you're very likely to get back $208 in value. Extrapolating dollar values into statistics, $32 extra dollars worth of value on offense will buy you more points on offense, so long as you don't clump those extra dollars into one category and buy excess. To phrase this another way, if you spend $208 on offense and that extra $32 goes t0 Dave Roberts instead of Joe Schlub at $1, you'll probably win steals in a walk but won't maximize your point totals.
Generally speaking, though, owners who spend more than $175 on offense are savvy enough not to do this. They spread their money across all four or five offensive categories. By doing this, they ensure higher point totals across the board.
This only works, though, if only one or two owners are using this tactic. Once an entire league starts doing this, the advantage is nullified. However, sas4's question remains unanswered. Can a team, in a league where each team is spending $208 on offense, win by spending less?
Here, as I see them, are the pros and cons to spending $175/$85 in a $208/$52 environment:
Cons
1) A $175 offense will not produce as much as a $208 offense, all things being equal. Offense if more predictable than pitching.
2) Because #1 is true, it therefore stands to reason that a $52 pitching staff has a better chance of being equal or better than an $85 pitching staff, given the year to year vagaries of pitching.
3) You have a better chance of picking up a $20+ pitcher as a free agent than you do a $20 + hitter as a free agent.
4) If you commit $30+ to a closer and that closer tanks, you've dug yourself an even more severe hole than in a league where everyone is spending $85 on pitching.
Pros
1) Unless you're in a league that seriously punts saves, you can get two closers cheaper than you normally would. Given the significant earning potential of closers in ERA/WHIP as well as saves, your opponents are giving you a huge advantage.
2) Hitting, particularly power, is easier to trade for/dump for later in the season than starting pitching. Once the top starters are identified based on performance, teams are typically reluctant to let these horses go without getting a lot back. I've also noticed that teams that are dumping often are dumping because they don't have a pitching ace.
3) Typically, surprise pitchers aren't found in the $1-3 bargain bin, but in the next tier of $4-10 pitchers. In other words, if your opponents are spending next to nothing on pitching, you actually have a greater chance of winding up with the next great thing than they do.
4) A $52 pitching strategy is limiting in a lot of ways. Besides the closer conundrum (#1 above), a team committed to $52 in pitching is locked out of an ace pitcher like Johan Santana and must pull and pray with pitching. Yes, a $208/$52 team can get lucky and avoid the ($10) - ($20) pitchers. But every dollar below $85 spent makes this less likely.
As I talked about earlier, you will have a hard time purchasing a winning team if you stray too far from your league's split. If your league splits its money $2496/$624, you will have difficulties filling out an offense with your $175/$85 split. This is because the $30 hitter on your sheet will be valued at $36 by your league. You won't be able to buy enough offense to win and, in fact, mind accidentally wind up with a $140/$120 team. This definitely won't win you your league.
What you should do in a situation like this is spend $200/$60 or $195/$65 to the league's $208/$52. You will still be able to field a competitive offense, but you'll also be able to pick your pitchers more selectively than the teams spending $52.
I did leave out a few nuggets from sas4's post. Most notably...
We are 15 team mixed league using 33 players (25 active, 8 reserve)...Eureka!
The mixed league dynamic is seriously different from the A.L. or N.L.-only dynamic.
For one, there are even more free pitchers sitting in the pool at the end of the auction, even with the eight team reserve list. This won't change the prices too much for the pitchers at the top of the pay scale, but it will lower the prices for the middle of the pack guys significantly. We all know that the $15-20 pitchers can turn into $0 pitchers, so why pay $15-20 for a guy who may very well be worse than a lot of the free agents out there.
For another thing, you're now looking at 30 closers to be distributed amongst 15 teams. Of course you can skimp on saves; you're going to wind up with at least one closer, and if one or two teams give up on the category entirely, you can now put together a really cheap bullpen and maybe get lucky and grab three closers. Grabbing Nathan or Wagner for $35+ makes little sense in this environment.
So, no, spending more on offense isn't Stage 4. It's a good strategy under certain conditions, but in a more standard A.L.-only or N.L.-only league, it's a beatable strategy.
In fact, in almost every league I've been in, the common factor to winning is a top-flight pitching staff. I've only seen one team in all my years win with a bottom three finish in ERA/WHIP. Meanwhile, I've seen teams finish middle of the pack in HR/RBI or near the bottom in BA or SB and win. But it's almost impossible to win in A.L./N.L. Roto without quality arms.
And you have to pay a little more than $52 for quality arms.
2 comments:
Mike: I have to go on a bicycle ride, the day is too beautiful and I will post more tonight or tomorrow. But a few interim thoughts:
1. In our league you still most have solid pitching to win; but keep in mind it is relatively cheaper since everyone is piling on offense.
2. An owner must master the concept of a 'plateau' player - the must have guy needed to mount an assault on any category. It is a fatal mistake to have spent all that money on J. Reyes and finish last in steals. Conversely, without a Reyes, you have a hard time making any progress in speed.
3. To go along with a 'plateau' player there must be the 'incremental' player, the Kinsler (I am hoping) who can get 20 steals and move you up rapidly through the category while not hurting you in other offensive areas.
4. I always stay away from cheap power and cheap speed unless they are truely cheap. I would rather add the money to a stud or plateau player and leave the roster spot empty.
5. Every year I have 3-4 rosters spots with $1-3 players that I hope to fill with a miracle. This year they include Snelling, McLouth, Broussard, S. Stewart, and on the pitching side, Lohse and Chacin.
6. It is easier to fill in cheap pitching later in the season than cheap hitting in a power oriented league.
7. When the league shifts from 'balanced' to power, and the price of pitching drops, you get a regression in pricing. Stud pitchers retain most of their value, and lesser pitchers drop in value, to a greater percentage, the cheaper they get.
8. I looked at your pros and cons. On the Con side I agree with you on points 1, 2, especially 3 and 4.
On the pro side:
1. I disagree. The advantage on spending on closers is negated by the overall problem with closers: by July there are 6-7 new closers who could have been had for a song by the astute (and lucky).
2. Greater pitching is hard to get latter in the season via a trade--with that I agree: However it is harder to get power for pitching in a league where it cost so much originally. Most of our trades are mid priced pitchers for slightly lower quality hitters. Stud hitters and pitchers never go except when someone has a lock on a category.
3. Disagree. Why? becasue in the power oriented league, those $4-6 pitchers fall to a buck or $2.
4. In a power league, the conundrum does not exist. With everyone spending 20% on pitching, no one has an advantage.
Six or seven years ago, I decided to try to take advantage of the imbalance. I upped my pitching budget to over 30%. I picked up Mussina, Schilling and Randy Johnson and stayed within budget.
Needless to say, I did very well in pitching. My offense sucked. Late in the season I traded Schilling for Andruw Jones--it barely helped me.
(I now conclude that if three or four other owners did the same thing it would change the dynamic. )
No one chased me. They let me win the pitching categories, and fought it out for 2nd. I was mired in the second division in all of the offensive stats. A respectable finish but no chance of winning. And no one remembers who finished second (Unless the league winner was determined by a Chipper Jones error on the last day in the last game in the ninth inning.).
Back from the bike ride. great time to think.
"As I talked about earlier, you will have a hard time purchasing a winning team if you stray too far from your league's split. If your league splits its money $2496/$624, you will have difficulties filling out an offense with your $175/$85 split."
Mike, that statement of yours is the immutable truth. All knowledge flows from that.
The following are also important:
1. Never overbid on rookies, and try to avoid bidding on them altogether. The value generated from all rookies is not more than 50% of what is spent on them.
2. Stash some young players or trade for them mid season. Example for pitching: Villanueva of the Brewers. I am hoping to start him after the All Star game. Ande Marte- I could not afford him in the auction, I am hope to get him from his disgruntled owner in June.
3. Get some bargains. If you cannot get some bargains, you cannot win.
4. Whatto do with the money you saved on bargains? This is critical. It goes to the position- value issues. Use that money to overbid on studs or to spread around some $1 bargains (see 5 below). The money I saved early in our auction is what I used to justify overpaying for J. Reyes. I would rather add the $4-5 saved on the bargains to Reyes, A Rod, Santana etc. than to a $10 player.
5.Buying cheap players at the end is critical. Not all $1 players are equal and most are not worth a $1. This year when the dust settled I had 19 real starters for 25 active spots. (see 6 below). In the end I filled my roster with the likes of Snelling, Wheeler, S. Stewart, Loshe, Izturis, Gregg, Chacin, P. Byrd (YES!), Villanueva and Chris Shelton.
6. In a power dominated league, when everyone overpays for power, it leaves a lot of these kinds of players available for a $1. I would rather have 19-20 solid players and hope that I can fill with cheap players, particulalry pitching in the end game. I think that is superior to having 25 solid players and no 'plateau' players.
7. Scarecity of position and the laws of supply and demand are far more complicated than we realize. The flow of the auction not only changes the value of players but it changes the value of money. Just ask the owner with money left at the end and no players to buy. His money is worthless.
I track the ebb and flow of the auction and always know how much $ each owner has left and what they have at each position. We have all witnessed periods when players are undervalued. We try to get bargains but, if we do not get players that help us at a specific positon or category, that player is really of no value.
Conversely, lool at a real baseball situation. Spring training is approaching and the Braves (or whoever) need a number 4 pitcher. Imagine the team payroll if $100,000,000. There is a decent #4 starter available for $3M -that is what they are worth. But a second team wants him and the price is now $4.5M.
What is the owner and GM to do? If they really believe they are a #4 starter away from winnning the pennant, what is a payroll of $104.5 million as opposed to $103 million? In the grand scheme of things the additonal money is inconsequential to the entire cost of running the club.
We do the same thing in fantasy ball. We have salary caps so we compensate for it by paying less for another player. But most important - there these bizarre situations when two or more owners need the same mediocre player - or at least they think they do.
8. This is not all mathematical. It is emotional and it requires judgment. Most owners prefer to look at the box scores and find that their hitters drove in 12, scored 9, and hit 4 home runs rather than see their pitchers won two games and had a ratio under 1.00. That is why hitting costs more in most leagues.
Knowing the $1 players is critical. Everyone knows what Ortiz or J Reyes or Santana will do. Finding the $1 player that allows you to overbid on a stud is the name of the game. Anyone who buys the majority of the magazines or any USA or Baseball Today or Sporting News publication deserves to lose.
I spend most of the winter looking for $1 players who do not have jobs, guys who were injured ( no back problems please) or guys that are the 4th OF on a team with a lot of fragile players. Then I rely on two sources to learn how these guys look in the spring...all you guys who hang around Alexpatton.com and Shandler's material.
Post a Comment