I don't do this every season or in every league (in both expert leagues I'm in, I have at least one closer), but since saves are such a fungible commodity, I'm always reluctant to pay anything close to a "market" price. The result is that I typically wind up with zero closers to start the year.
On the other hand, I almost always wind up with at least one closer by the time June rolls around. This isn't because I've suddenly developed faith in the reliability of closers, but rather because the market has changed dramatically.
Think back to your Auction Day. In a typical league, teams come in to the auction with zero, one, or two closers. By the end of the auction, some teams will move from one closer to two while others will move from zero to one or zero to two. At this point, the baseline has been established for your league.
It is atypical for a trade to happen on Opening Day. But let's assume for a moment that in a hypothetical 12-team, A.L.-only the projected saves standings look like this on Opening Day:
Saves Proj | Points | ||||||
Team A | 74 | 12 | |||||
Team B | 65 | 11 | |||||
Team C | 64 | 10 | |||||
Team D | 60 | 9 | |||||
Team E | 53 | 8 | |||||
Team F | 48 | 7 | |||||
Team G | 41 | 6 | |||||
Team H | 32 | 5 | |||||
Team I | 31 | 4 | |||||
Team J | 25 | 3 | |||||
Team K | 8 | 2 | |||||
Team L | 7 | 1 |
Well, the numbers above are only somewhat hypothetical; this is my home A.L. using Rotoman's projections from early April. There obviously isn't a straight "30 saves per closer" formula at work here; some closers will obviously get more opportunities and/or save more games. The rub is that we know that some closers will be more effective than we expect, others less, and some will bite the dust altogether.
For Team H, I, or J, grabbing a 30 save guy on April 10 would catapult you up the standings in saves. If the closer in question was an ERA/WHIP guy like Mariano Rivera or Andrew Bailey, you might even be willing to trade a front line hitter and a second player for that closer; you're not only gaining saves, but ERA/WHIP points as well.
Flash forward to June 11. How does the saves category look now?
Saves | Points | Projected Saves | Projected Points | Closers | |||
Team C | 31 | 12 | 77 | 11 | 1 | ||
Team D | 27 | 11 | 85 | 12 | 3 | ||
Team A | 26 | 10 | 73 | 10 | 2 | ||
Team F | 23 | 9 | 54 | 8 | 1 | ||
Team H | 18 | 8 | 46 | 7 | 1 | ||
Team G | 12 | 6 | 28 | 5 | 1 | ||
Team I | 12 | 6 | 40 | 6 | 1 | ||
Team K | 12 | 6 | 60 | 9 | 1 | ||
Team B | 10 | 3.5 | 10 | 2 | 0 | ||
Team E | 10 | 3.5 | 14 | 3 | 0 | ||
Team J | 6 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 1 | ||
Team K | 3 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
Trades and job changes have spread the category out a good deal. Team K could still gain some ground in the category, but you're looking at acquiring 20-25 saves from one closer at best. Instead of a 7-8 point gain, now you're only looking at a 3-4 point gain.
Note that this calculation applies to elite closers just as much as it does to the fungible guys in the middle or bottom of the heap that might lose their jobs.
In newer or more "immature" leagues, owners make the mistake of overpaying for closers - or paying the same price in June that they would pay in April. "Mature" leagues, though, have enough owners who recognize this phenomenon. An owner might go fishing for a closer, but if the price for Mariano Rivera is Zack Greinke and J.D. Drew, that owner will probably pass. There's too much to lose in that trade and too little to gain.
1 comment:
And, sometimes MLB GMs have same learning curve. The O's have probably had their best closer waiting around all year, D. Hernandez, and lo and behold, they found him. Now, ask me if I think McPhail and the beloved Sammy will resist impulse to go back to A. Simon.
Post a Comment