(what are) your thoughts on the disadvantages of buying the top priced players. I had Jose Reyes at $48 with Brandon Webb at $31 so I finished at the bottom, I also had Grady Sizemore at $41, both of course keeper leagues, and got hurt there too.I've given this question a lot of thought over the last couple of days, and thought about approaching it from a number of angles. The problem, though, is that there isn't a uniform answer. The most obvious answer is the most sensible one: the expensive players who break even or even lose a little money are good investments and - in some cases - are even better investments than players in the middle or bottom of the food chain who break even or lose a little money. Getting $40 of stats from a $40 player is better than getting $20 of stats from a $20 player; you're buying more stats.
In keeper leagues, this principle applies even more. Getting $40 of stats from a $40 player not only buys you $40 worth of stats, but keeps that $40 from getting sucked into the room's inflation. The collective pool of players in a keeper league are incredibly likely to lose money; if one expensive player breaks even on inflation or - better yet - returns par, pre-inflation value, you're ahead of the game.
I'd avoid expensive players in a keeper league if you have a middle-of-the-road team and you're trying to contend this year. If your team projects out to $300-310 worth of value post-auction and you make one big misstep like Sizemore or Reyes, you're going to knock yourself out of the race quickly. While this could also happen with players in their $10s or $20s, you could also get lucky with players in this price range and get the lucky bargains you need to get to jump from middle-of-the-road to top of the pack. On the other hand, a player you pay $40 for is incredibly unlikely to earn $50.
5 comments:
Using Patton & CO numbers:
$40 Ryan Howard 105 45 141 8 .279
versus
Casey Blake * 2:
$20 Casey Blake 170 36 158 6 .280
So you have 65 runs, 17 RBI's against 9 HR and 2 SB.
How is it that a $40 player earning $40 will contribute more stats?
Your $1 player is going to contribute more than nothing. Plus, if you're in a league that allows liberal FAAB replacement of useless, not just DL or designated players, you can find a suitable replacement for your $1 player. That -17 RBI turn into a +20 pretty quickly. The plus 9 HR turn into +14. The steals become +7. The runs may still wind up -20, but I'd say you're pretty far ahead even with a replacement level player.
Plus, I think MikeG has shown, the $40 player projects better than the $20 player who is much more variable in terms of return on investment.
If you are saying "a player I can get under value by paying $1 for", than that's VERY different than saying "a player worth $1". A player WORTH $1 contributes almost nothing, BY DEFINITION.
Kevin Barker: $1 in value, .280 average. (again referencing Patton & co).
Are you suggesting his 2 runs and 3 RBI's somehow tip the scales in the $40 player's favour?
Howard + Barker: $41
107 R 45 HR 143 RBI 8SB .279
Casey Blake $20 * 2:
170 R 36 HR 158 RBI 6SB .280
So, again: 63 Runs and 14 RBI's and an extra 300 AB of .280 average against 9 HR and 2 SB?
First of all there's no such thing as two Casey Blakes. So your example is just as irrational as mine.
But, my point is that you're not going to drop either Casey Blake for the best available FAAB player. You are going to do that with the $1 endgame pick. So you really have to consider the stats of a solid FAAB hitter for that position.
And who took your Kevin Barker for $1 in the auction? Nobody, I presume. (I don't do NL so I don't even know who he is). Is he one of the top 169 hitters in the NL? If not, he's not worth $1. He's worth nothing. Only 169 hitters are auctioned. Take anyone out of the pool after player 169 (make the positions balance). Then tell me who's worth $1. It's not this guy, that's for sure. If there are no $1 players left, that means that the denominators aren't right.
Also, when drafting you're not paying $1 for a player you expect to be worth $1. If you do, good luck. Last year I got Jeff Niemann and Willie Bloomquist for $1 each in the end game. I was expecting better from both. And, I got it. Granted, I took Bloomquist over Zobrist for my MI, so it was a "mistake" even though I banked a solid profit there.
Not everyone is going to have the same player pool on their draft sheets. It creates some pricing imbalances at the end. For $1 you take the best available player, or the guy you project to be the best at the end of season.
MikeG shows every year that the top 10 hitters earn back closer to their value than the guys half their salaries. You have to expect a slight loss, but the loss actually grows for the middle level hitters. They're more likely to lose their jobs or just fall flat. They have more end of season variability compared to their auction prices. Their salaries/earnings are less reliable.
Post a Comment