The crapshoot is that area of the auction sometimes called the endgame and I define it as the $1-3 range. Four dollars, in my opinion, is not the crapshoot. If you are pushing a player to $4, the idea is that you want him and are no longer paying what is a "filler" price.
Today, I thought I'd look at how well the players who were bought in this part of the auction (typically the back end of the auction) did last year.
N.L. Pitchers @ $3 or less, 2009
| Range | # | $ | Sal | +/- | #$5 or more |
| $3 | 4 | $10 | $12 | -2 | 1 |
| $2 | 15 | $104 | $28 | +76 | 7 |
| $1 | 30 | $96 | $27 | +69 | 12 |
| $0 | 24 | $49 | $8 | +41 | 6 |
| TOT | 73 | $259 | $75 | +184 | 26 |
These are the data for the 73 pitchers with an average salary of $3 or less in last year's N.L. expert auctions. The columns are fairly self-explanatory, with the possible exception of the one on the right; this column tells us how many pitchers in the range earned $5 or more in 2009.
If you don't believe that the Roto game has changed when it comes to pitching, this chart should provide all the proof you need. In a 13-team N.L., 117 pitchers are typically purchased. LABR tosses us a curve ball by buying 130 (10 per team instead of the standard nine). There is not 100% overlap, though. Some pitchers are taken in one or two expert leagues and bypassed in one or two others. The result is that 147 National League pitchers were purchased by the three expert leagues last year.
This still means that almost 50% of the pitchers taken (49.7%) went for an average salary of $3 or less.
The $184 profit means that owners are overpaying the top pitchers and underpaying these guys on the bottom. Or the arms at the top are not delivering while the ones at the bottom are. Either way, there is ample opportunity to make hay in the pitching endgame.
The profits at the bottom were even more pronounced in the American League.
A.L. Pitchers @ $3 or less, 2009
| Range | # | $ | Sal | +/- | #$5 or more |
| $3 | 8 | $41 | $24 | +17 | 3 |
| $2 | 18 | $97 | $35 | +62 | 8 |
| $1 | 25 | $153 | $22 | +131 | 11 |
| $0 | 21 | $57 | $7 | +50 | 6 |
| TOT | 72 | $348 | $88 | +260 | 28 |
In the A.L., 108 pitchers were auctioned in each expert league. All told, 136 unique pitchers were auctioned. Over 50% (52.9%) of the pitchers bought had an average salary of $3 or less.
They're obviously not all winners. Twenty-three of the A.L. pitchers who sit for this portrait lost owners $1 or more on their investment, while 25 of the N.L. moundsmen did the same.
But it can't be denied that due to the variability on the pitching side, there's a good chance you can stick your hand into the muck at the end of the auction and come out yelling, "look what I found."
Was it only the pitchers, though?
N.L. Hitters @ $3 or less, 2009
| Range | # | $ | Sal | +/- | #$5 or more |
| $3 | 18 | $130 | $54 | +76 | 11 |
| $2 | 14 | $82 | $27 | +55 | 6 |
| $1 | 23 | $72 | $23 | +49 | 7 |
| $0 | 26 | $23 | $9 | +14 | 2 |
| TOT | 81 | $307 | $113 | +194 | 22 |
There's actually more profit turned on the bottom of the barrel N.L. hitters than there was on the pitchers.
However, this is only in total. Per player, the N.L. hitters made a little less profit per player ($2.40) than the pitchers did ($2.52).
There is also a little more reliability with the hitters, in a sense. The $3 group made the most money back overall and per player, the $2 group was next, followed by the $1 hitters and then the $0 (33 cents, actually) group. It seems to make some sense with the hitters to save a little money for the endgame, where with the pitchers it seems somewhat more random.
A.L. Hitters @ $3 or less, 2009
| Range | # | $ | Sal | +/- | #$5 or more |
| $3 | 10 | $51 | $30 | +20 | 4 |
| $2 | 11 | $52 | $22 | +29 | 2 |
| $1 | 18 | $62 | $18 | +44 | 6 |
| $0 | 22 | $42 | $7 | +36 | 5 |
| TOT | 61 | $207 | $77 | +129 | 17 |
The A.L. group is the least lucrative of these four groupings, and a lot of these profits are tied up in a small handful of hitters. Ben Zobrist, Alberto Callaspo, and Maicer Izturis earned a combined $63 and make up for 30% of the earnings in this chart.
There's still profit to be had, though.
You obviously can't spend your entire auction waiting for the endgame. You need to buy stats to compete, and a lot of these hitters and pitchers are going to go belly up. Still, it's worth having some money around at the end to express your preferences and buy the players you want. As you can see, there are profits to be had if you play your cards right.
4 comments:
I guess if there's a time to bring this up, it's in this post, soooo....
My 6X6, NL-only team is slim on keepers (probably only Fielder at $33 and M. Montero $5). Yeah, it's a sad state.
With that in mind, I'm thinking about going with a $10 pitching staff. The total cap is $270.
A few items of note:
-My league counts holds, so I can pick up a few points with MRs.
-The last-place ERA in the last two years has been about 4.70.
-The last-place WHIP has been 1.47.
-We count W-L, not W.
-My league has a 1,200-inning minimum.
If I can put virtually all of my money in hitting, I could realistically shoot for all 72 points on the offensive side. The first-place stats in the past three seasons has been a composite:
.283 AVG
33 DT
19 HR
74 R
73 RBI
13 SB
We carry 13 offensive players.
Sorry to everyone for the long post. Is this the dumbest idea ever?
What are the penalties for failure to reach 1200 IP? Is it zero points in ERA/WHIP? Is there a financial penalty as well?
If you have any intention of making 1200 IP, you need to have at least 5 starting pitchers, maybe 6 if they're all $1 b/c they will likely be a lot of #5 starters.
I don't know the NL, but I'd focus on teams that have higher defensive efficiency ratings. Defense could help you a lot in ERA/WHIP.
I'd also up the budget to $15 so that you can target pitchers instead of just getting stuck with whoever you announce that nobody else wants.
Thanks for your post. In the American League Mike and I compete in, I tried this a couple of years ago. I do not have the exact set of pitchers I went with on hand here at work, but I did go with an initial nine starter strategy.
The problem with any such strategy is that you cannot control certain things. My team was an excellent example...I got lucky with a few starting pitchers, but I also suffered a few early injuries. I started to trade some hitting for pitching. Then I had another 1 or 2 hitters go down, and was really stuck, because I had nothing to trade.
The margin of error in any such strategy is very, very small. Done right, however, it can throw the league on its ear. One other thing to remember: you may want to tweak your pricing (either in pencil next to your bids or in your hear) to adjust for the valuation differences you may cause with your strategy. You are obviously in a position to overpay a $1 or $2 for offense, and you will not be driving up the prices on pitchers...keep this in mind as you go. You cannot get caught price enforcing a pitcher.
Toz, you bring up a good point.
I am worried that my strategy will push someone like Brad Hawpe to $30 if everyone sees me trying to stack up on reliable offensive talent.
My margin of error is really small because I'm essentially trying to get all 72 offensive points (I'm in a 6X6, 12-team league) while attempting to get another 20 to 30 points with my pitching.
Post a Comment