It is becoming a cliche, but fantasy dominance is not about drafting the consensus #1 player in the sport or at a specific position. It doesn't take intelligence to figure out that LaDainian Tomlinson is the best player in fantasy football. What does take a certain amount of hard work is figuring out which players are likely to outperform their historic baselines.
Now, my good friend DB was kind enough to enlighten us to his beliefs on roster building - specifically, that deciding exclusively to draft good value picks can lead to a lot of good value, but an incomplete roster. So, getting a replacement level fantasy performer for $1 in a draft is great when you project out what you're getting for your $1, but when you can't find a solid player to plug into your final two roster spots, you're in trouble.
When we named this blog "Most Likely to Succeed," we did it because fantasy sports are not about being right or wrong in an absolute sense. They are about putting yourself in a position to be right or wrong most of the time. If you have identified three players who you feel are potential breakout candidates, that doesn't mean they will breakout. This year, players like Jeff Francoeur, Robinson Cano, and Chris Young (OF), are proof of the belief that players primed for big years do not always have them. But for every Chris Young there's a Matt Kemp, for every Robinson Cano there's an Ian Kinsler, and for every Jeff Francoeur there's a Carlos Quentin.
Now I'd like to be able to tell you that I can identify which players are poised for huge breakouts and which aren't. I'd like to be able to say that every team of mine this year featured Quentin, Kinsler, and Kemp instead of Young, Cano, and Francoeur - but that's just not true. What is true is that these players - some of them taken early in drafts, some taken later - are more fundamental to fantasy success than guys like Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols.
So, with all that said, I want to unveil my key to success in this year's football season: Andre Johnson. Now, you might look at this page and say that predicting Andre Johnson's success takes no real skill - but I see his average draft position and rankings relative to other wide receivers, and I see incredible value.
Consider this - last year, Andre Johnson missed weeks 3-9 due to injury. His quarterback, Matt Schaub, missed weeks 14-17. That means that Johnson and Schaub were on the same field only 5 times all of last season (week 10 was a bye). In those five games, Andre Johnson averaged 6 receptions, 107 yards, and 1 TD.
I'm not going to promise that Andre Johnson is going to catch 93 balls for 1712 yards and 16 TDs this year (those are his statistics with Schaub extrapolated over a 16 game season). What I am going to promise is that those statistics make me much more exicted about Johnson's relative value as a borderline 2nd/3rd round pick than almost anyone else surrounding him in draft rankings.
So, is Johnson going to end this season as the #1 WR in fantasy football? Probably not. But, what Andre Johnson will do is provide as much upside as anyone in all of football at very reasonable value.
What are your thoughts on potential breakout stars this year? Leave something in the comments section if you're liking what you've read so far.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Drafting Value: Buyer Beware
Schwartz and I participated in a Fantasy Football draft yesterday. It's an auction league -- $180 to spend on at least 15 and no more than 18 players. 2x QB, 3x RB, 3x WR, WR/RB, TE, K, DEF start each week (4pts TD pass, PPR, standard otherwise). About an hour into the draft, about 30 players were off the board. Most of them were elite fantasy players with few exceptions. Some teams had splurged on premium talent and were looking for fantastic value in the later rounds, which turned out to be readily available. The emerging trend of the draft was that some excellent mid-range players would go for virtually nothing in the later rounds and, more importantly, some forgotten elite players went for far below their expected relative values.
Now, these two trends are all well and good if you can take advantage of them. It is still possible to build an excellent roster, as Alex did (http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/402833/1/team?date=2008-08-31&week=1&stat1=S&stat2=S_2008), by hanging back and getting the forgotten guys for fantatasic prices. It is even viable to specifically target those guys and wait for them, knowing that you will lock them up at a solid points/dollars spent ratio. My issue with this strategy is two-fold: 1. the more aware your competition is, the more the viability of this tactic is dimished, 2. In reality there are a finite number of total fantasy points to be had, as the elite players leave the board and make way 3rd-6th level talent, your chance of getting a high number of total points decrease.
The first point is pretty self-explanatory. After the initial feeding frenzy in the top 25-35 picks, fantasy owners are going to wise up and start looking for players that 1. fill holes, 2. complement their top 2-3 picks, 3. look for value, 4. block other owners needs. I'm not sure how many players in your leagues run with full draft boards or track every team's roster, but in this particular league something like 9 of the 12 owners were astute about who was still on the board and which teams needed certain positions filled. Thus, roughly 25% of the league selections were being made without much concern for the overall board; this works out to roughly 25% of the available player pool having a skewed value relative to the other 75%. Primary examples of players having a skewed value in our draft were: Marques Colston being roughly 18th-20th most expensive receiver (instead of being the 5th-8th most expensive) and Donovan McNabb going for less than John Kitna, Marc Bulger and Eli Manning to name a few.
The other major issue I have with waiting to capitalize on the great values created by an imperfect market is my belief that the total number of fantasy points available is finite. To capitalize of the finite nature of total points, fantasy owners need to put themselves in a position to not only look for a great value in terms of dollars spent per point earned, but to look for guys who have the highest probablity of earning those points. One of the major reasons why elite players are elite is not because they are athletic freaks (though almost all of them are) or because they play on great teams (though that certainly helps). The big reason you draft these players is because they are mortal locks to get the ball, unless injured. Fantasy points can't be earned without touching the ball at some point of the play (unless we're talking about defense) -- you're paying for the position that an elite player occupies, not necessarily the skills that player has. For instance, LaDainian Tomlinson is the best RB in fantasy football because 1) he's been consistent enough over the course of his career that the Chargers want him to touch the ball as much as possible in a game, 2) he's virtually injury free at a position that is generally plagued by injury, 3) there aren't many other competitors on the Chargers for offensive touches -- sure they'll go to Gates with great frequency, but the WR are weak -- avoiding LT in favor of a more diversified offense lowers San Deigo's chance of scoring points and winning games.
How do we apply this in terms of fantasy? Using the LT example, lets say you're looking for 1-2 WR late in the draft and are looking to get great value (I'm going to use my own league as an example here, so you're looking for your #2, #3 WR or perhaps your #3 WR and a Flex. To be clear, you are looking for 2 players to start weekly). Vincent Jackson is still on the board and you are able to grab him for $1. Looking at it from a value standpoint, you probably just picked up 120-150 fantasy points for a buck, a fantastic rate of return on your one dollar. However, look at Vincent Jackson's relative value compared to your competition. If you are starting him as a #2 WR, you're in a lot of trouble -- a lot of teams are going to be starting wideouts that are first on an NFL depth chart in that slot. Sure, you've picked up a solid value points-wise, but there is virtually no way you can compete in that position by starting San Diego's #2 wideout, there simply aren't enough opportunities to for that position in San Diego's offense to score fantasy points.
Now, these two trends are all well and good if you can take advantage of them. It is still possible to build an excellent roster, as Alex did (http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/402833/1/team?date=2008-08-31&week=1&stat1=S&stat2=S_2008), by hanging back and getting the forgotten guys for fantatasic prices. It is even viable to specifically target those guys and wait for them, knowing that you will lock them up at a solid points/dollars spent ratio. My issue with this strategy is two-fold: 1. the more aware your competition is, the more the viability of this tactic is dimished, 2. In reality there are a finite number of total fantasy points to be had, as the elite players leave the board and make way 3rd-6th level talent, your chance of getting a high number of total points decrease.
The first point is pretty self-explanatory. After the initial feeding frenzy in the top 25-35 picks, fantasy owners are going to wise up and start looking for players that 1. fill holes, 2. complement their top 2-3 picks, 3. look for value, 4. block other owners needs. I'm not sure how many players in your leagues run with full draft boards or track every team's roster, but in this particular league something like 9 of the 12 owners were astute about who was still on the board and which teams needed certain positions filled. Thus, roughly 25% of the league selections were being made without much concern for the overall board; this works out to roughly 25% of the available player pool having a skewed value relative to the other 75%. Primary examples of players having a skewed value in our draft were: Marques Colston being roughly 18th-20th most expensive receiver (instead of being the 5th-8th most expensive) and Donovan McNabb going for less than John Kitna, Marc Bulger and Eli Manning to name a few.
The other major issue I have with waiting to capitalize on the great values created by an imperfect market is my belief that the total number of fantasy points available is finite. To capitalize of the finite nature of total points, fantasy owners need to put themselves in a position to not only look for a great value in terms of dollars spent per point earned, but to look for guys who have the highest probablity of earning those points. One of the major reasons why elite players are elite is not because they are athletic freaks (though almost all of them are) or because they play on great teams (though that certainly helps). The big reason you draft these players is because they are mortal locks to get the ball, unless injured. Fantasy points can't be earned without touching the ball at some point of the play (unless we're talking about defense) -- you're paying for the position that an elite player occupies, not necessarily the skills that player has. For instance, LaDainian Tomlinson is the best RB in fantasy football because 1) he's been consistent enough over the course of his career that the Chargers want him to touch the ball as much as possible in a game, 2) he's virtually injury free at a position that is generally plagued by injury, 3) there aren't many other competitors on the Chargers for offensive touches -- sure they'll go to Gates with great frequency, but the WR are weak -- avoiding LT in favor of a more diversified offense lowers San Deigo's chance of scoring points and winning games.
How do we apply this in terms of fantasy? Using the LT example, lets say you're looking for 1-2 WR late in the draft and are looking to get great value (I'm going to use my own league as an example here, so you're looking for your #2, #3 WR or perhaps your #3 WR and a Flex. To be clear, you are looking for 2 players to start weekly). Vincent Jackson is still on the board and you are able to grab him for $1. Looking at it from a value standpoint, you probably just picked up 120-150 fantasy points for a buck, a fantastic rate of return on your one dollar. However, look at Vincent Jackson's relative value compared to your competition. If you are starting him as a #2 WR, you're in a lot of trouble -- a lot of teams are going to be starting wideouts that are first on an NFL depth chart in that slot. Sure, you've picked up a solid value points-wise, but there is virtually no way you can compete in that position by starting San Diego's #2 wideout, there simply aren't enough opportunities to for that position in San Diego's offense to score fantasy points.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Re: Draft Strategy: Upside
I wanted to take a moment to respond to the Deeb's arguments regarding upside. I agree with almost everything he said - the value of an individual is constantly being reevaluated based on the most recent string of outcomes (case in point, Robinson Cano and Travis Hafner, who went from being 2nd-3rd round picks to waiver wire fodder in one of my leagues). However, there is one issue I wanted to jump in on and clarify.
Fantasy players, like all assets, are valued based on risk. A player who is a perceived risk (Albert Pujols and the possibility of Tommy John surgery this season comes to mind), or whose stats are inconsistent year to year or game to game (think streaky players like Mark Reynolds or slick Willie Parker) are undervalued relative to their peers. Sure, if you draft enough Jerricho Cotcherys, Patrick Craytons and Anthony Gonzalezes, you're going to end up with some quality wide receivers in the later rounds. But - and this is an important conjunction - you're also going to have far more busts than you'd like. In a shallow league with a deep bench this is a perfectly acceptable (and probably optimal) strategy, but in a deeper league where you're having to reach into the dregs of the player pool to find startable talent, there is significant value in being able to achieve a certain level of consistency.
Alex Gordon, Justin Upton, Jay Bruce, and Evan Longoria were all considered "can't miss" prospects. People salivate(d) when their names were brought up, and if your fantasy leagues with anything like mine, these guys were drafted in the middle rounds when plenty of serviceable major leaguers were available. In the case of Longoria, this has turned out to be a masterful decision - the guy looks like he's one of the 5 best Third Basemen in baseball already. With Bruce, Upton, and Gordon, it has been more of a mixed bag. If you're not relying on putting these guys in your lineup everyday, this risk seems perfectly reasonable, but if you are, there is a lot to be said for drafting Jim Thome, Torrii Hunter, and Ted Lilly.
To be clear, these guys are not going to light the world on fire. With a guy like Thome, you're getting power, power and more power with no roster flexibility. With Ted Lilly, you're getting an above-average strikeout pitcher throwing in a hitter's ballpark in front of a great offense. With Torrii Hunter, you can get excited that he's on your team when you're watching Web Gems on Baseball Tonight (not to mention a solid 20/20 talent who doesn't kill you anywhere else). The point is, what you're not getting is a question mark. What these guys are going to give you is consistency. These are the guys whose numbers you can pencil - no, ink - in year after year.
So, while the Deeb raised some extremely valid points - when in doubt, choose the player with upside - he neglected to mention a really important point - consistency is a skill. Maybe Hines Ward and Laveranues Coles aren't the sexy picks this year, but they are guys who, day in day out, are going to give you the more stable statistics.
Fantasy players, like all assets, are valued based on risk. A player who is a perceived risk (Albert Pujols and the possibility of Tommy John surgery this season comes to mind), or whose stats are inconsistent year to year or game to game (think streaky players like Mark Reynolds or slick Willie Parker) are undervalued relative to their peers. Sure, if you draft enough Jerricho Cotcherys, Patrick Craytons and Anthony Gonzalezes, you're going to end up with some quality wide receivers in the later rounds. But - and this is an important conjunction - you're also going to have far more busts than you'd like. In a shallow league with a deep bench this is a perfectly acceptable (and probably optimal) strategy, but in a deeper league where you're having to reach into the dregs of the player pool to find startable talent, there is significant value in being able to achieve a certain level of consistency.
Alex Gordon, Justin Upton, Jay Bruce, and Evan Longoria were all considered "can't miss" prospects. People salivate(d) when their names were brought up, and if your fantasy leagues with anything like mine, these guys were drafted in the middle rounds when plenty of serviceable major leaguers were available. In the case of Longoria, this has turned out to be a masterful decision - the guy looks like he's one of the 5 best Third Basemen in baseball already. With Bruce, Upton, and Gordon, it has been more of a mixed bag. If you're not relying on putting these guys in your lineup everyday, this risk seems perfectly reasonable, but if you are, there is a lot to be said for drafting Jim Thome, Torrii Hunter, and Ted Lilly.
To be clear, these guys are not going to light the world on fire. With a guy like Thome, you're getting power, power and more power with no roster flexibility. With Ted Lilly, you're getting an above-average strikeout pitcher throwing in a hitter's ballpark in front of a great offense. With Torrii Hunter, you can get excited that he's on your team when you're watching Web Gems on Baseball Tonight (not to mention a solid 20/20 talent who doesn't kill you anywhere else). The point is, what you're not getting is a question mark. What these guys are going to give you is consistency. These are the guys whose numbers you can pencil - no, ink - in year after year.
So, while the Deeb raised some extremely valid points - when in doubt, choose the player with upside - he neglected to mention a really important point - consistency is a skill. Maybe Hines Ward and Laveranues Coles aren't the sexy picks this year, but they are guys who, day in day out, are going to give you the more stable statistics.
Draft Strategy: Upside
The value of fantasy players is always in flux. When initially evaluating player talent, fantasy owners often place each player of a certain position into tiers. Individual players within each tier are rising, falling or holding consistent. When selecting players as a fantasy owner, a concerted effort should be made to acquire the rising players of a given player tier before consistent or, obviously, falling players.
One of the big keys to a successful fantasy draft is to try, in earnest, to figure out where you think players fall relative to their counterparts. To elucidate this point, let's take a look at the 2008 WR position.
At the very top of the WR list there are 3 elite players. Moss, Owens, Wayne. These are guys that can and will carry you during stretches of your fantasy season. You will spend a lot of auction dollars or very high draft picks to get them on your team. No one on the planet can fault you for taking these guys. Barring injury, they are can't miss players.
Much farther down the list, after the likes of the Chad Johnsons, Torry Holts and Braylon Edwards of the world, we get to a larger group of reiceivers who may or may not be equivalent players. The players I'm interested in for the purposes of this post are Jerricho Cotchery, Hines Ward, Laverneus Coles.
2007 numbers for the trio are as follows:
Cotchery: 82 receptions, 1130 yds, 2 TD, 15 games 26 yrs old
Ward: 71 receptions, 732 yds, 7 TD, 13 games, 32 yrs old
Coles: 55 receptions, 646 yds, 6 TD, 12 games, 31 yrs old
Shockingly, Cotchery had the fewest number of fantasy points of those three. If each of these players is on the board and you need a receiver, who are you taking? Ward and Coles in their best years will match or slightly exceed Cotchery. Cotchery in his best year can by all accounts completely obliterate Ward and Coles, guys that will be drafted slightly before or slightly after him. There is definitely value in knowing that Ward and Coles can pretty much be penciled in for their stats. There is also value in Cotchery's youth.
If the object is to win, looking for guys that will at worst meet their history is better than looking for the players that will at best meet their career numbers. Guys entering their prime are more valuable than those exiting their prime, because their career years (ie the limit on their potential value) have not been set yet. In a keeper format, this incredibly more important because it allows you to lock in a player at an incredible value. Having Cory Hart in the 9th round of next year's baseball draft is significantly more valuable than having to spend a 3rd or 4th round pick to get him. If a rising player is identified early enough, you've essentially given yourself extra money to spend on established talent or extra high round draft picks, depending on your format.
Other WR in this mold, in no particular order:
Calvin Johnson
Patrick Crayton
Justin Gage
Santonio Holmes
Roddy White
DJ Hackett
Anthony Gonzalez
One of the big keys to a successful fantasy draft is to try, in earnest, to figure out where you think players fall relative to their counterparts. To elucidate this point, let's take a look at the 2008 WR position.
At the very top of the WR list there are 3 elite players. Moss, Owens, Wayne. These are guys that can and will carry you during stretches of your fantasy season. You will spend a lot of auction dollars or very high draft picks to get them on your team. No one on the planet can fault you for taking these guys. Barring injury, they are can't miss players.
Much farther down the list, after the likes of the Chad Johnsons, Torry Holts and Braylon Edwards of the world, we get to a larger group of reiceivers who may or may not be equivalent players. The players I'm interested in for the purposes of this post are Jerricho Cotchery, Hines Ward, Laverneus Coles.
2007 numbers for the trio are as follows:
Cotchery: 82 receptions, 1130 yds, 2 TD, 15 games 26 yrs old
Ward: 71 receptions, 732 yds, 7 TD, 13 games, 32 yrs old
Coles: 55 receptions, 646 yds, 6 TD, 12 games, 31 yrs old
Shockingly, Cotchery had the fewest number of fantasy points of those three. If each of these players is on the board and you need a receiver, who are you taking? Ward and Coles in their best years will match or slightly exceed Cotchery. Cotchery in his best year can by all accounts completely obliterate Ward and Coles, guys that will be drafted slightly before or slightly after him. There is definitely value in knowing that Ward and Coles can pretty much be penciled in for their stats. There is also value in Cotchery's youth.
If the object is to win, looking for guys that will at worst meet their history is better than looking for the players that will at best meet their career numbers. Guys entering their prime are more valuable than those exiting their prime, because their career years (ie the limit on their potential value) have not been set yet. In a keeper format, this incredibly more important because it allows you to lock in a player at an incredible value. Having Cory Hart in the 9th round of next year's baseball draft is significantly more valuable than having to spend a 3rd or 4th round pick to get him. If a rising player is identified early enough, you've essentially given yourself extra money to spend on established talent or extra high round draft picks, depending on your format.
Other WR in this mold, in no particular order:
Calvin Johnson
Patrick Crayton
Justin Gage
Santonio Holmes
Roddy White
DJ Hackett
Anthony Gonzalez
The Back of the Uniform
What if I told you there were two players in baseball with the following lines in the past month:
Player A: 31 Innings, 3-1, 27 Strikeouts, 2.90 ERA, .97 WHIP
Player B: 41.1 Innings, 2-2, 33 Strikeouts, 2.61 ERA, .99 WHIP
You wouldn't be surprised that Player B is Cole Hamels, by all accounts an elite starting pitcher in the National League. What might come as a bit of a shock is that Player A, a pitcher who has achieved similar success in the past month, is Kevin Slowey. Let it sink in. Kevin Slowey.
Let's be serious, it's probably too late in your fantasy league for trades anyway, and if someone offered me Cole Hamels for Kevin Slowey I would accept the trade in approximately 2 seconds, but the fact remains that these two have been performing at a comparable level for the past four weeks. Look, no one is ever going to mistake Kevin Slowey for Cole Hamels, Mark Hamill, or Cole Trickle (yes I just went "Days of Thunder" on you), but you cannot overlook the importance of finding players capable of achieving similar success without the fanfare, and as a result, the fantasy respect, of today's superstars.
As your football draft date approaches, consider this: Antonio Gates is a name associated with fantasy dominance at the TE position. This is not an accident, the guy is an athletic freak who appears to be the favorite target of San Diego gunslingers. But Owen Daniels, the Texans TE, is probably not THAT far behind him. How about Randy McMichael or Chris Cooley? Are they sure things? No. But sport, and for the purposes of this site, fantasy sport, is not about sure things. It is about finding the best value in the best spot, maximizing team output, and capitalizing on the propensity of your competitors to do exactly what you aren't going to do - play it safe by overpaying for familiarity.
Player A: 31 Innings, 3-1, 27 Strikeouts, 2.90 ERA, .97 WHIP
Player B: 41.1 Innings, 2-2, 33 Strikeouts, 2.61 ERA, .99 WHIP
You wouldn't be surprised that Player B is Cole Hamels, by all accounts an elite starting pitcher in the National League. What might come as a bit of a shock is that Player A, a pitcher who has achieved similar success in the past month, is Kevin Slowey. Let it sink in. Kevin Slowey.
Let's be serious, it's probably too late in your fantasy league for trades anyway, and if someone offered me Cole Hamels for Kevin Slowey I would accept the trade in approximately 2 seconds, but the fact remains that these two have been performing at a comparable level for the past four weeks. Look, no one is ever going to mistake Kevin Slowey for Cole Hamels, Mark Hamill, or Cole Trickle (yes I just went "Days of Thunder" on you), but you cannot overlook the importance of finding players capable of achieving similar success without the fanfare, and as a result, the fantasy respect, of today's superstars.
As your football draft date approaches, consider this: Antonio Gates is a name associated with fantasy dominance at the TE position. This is not an accident, the guy is an athletic freak who appears to be the favorite target of San Diego gunslingers. But Owen Daniels, the Texans TE, is probably not THAT far behind him. How about Randy McMichael or Chris Cooley? Are they sure things? No. But sport, and for the purposes of this site, fantasy sport, is not about sure things. It is about finding the best value in the best spot, maximizing team output, and capitalizing on the propensity of your competitors to do exactly what you aren't going to do - play it safe by overpaying for familiarity.
Call me crazy...
In early June 2008, the following trade happened in my fantasy baseball league:
Third Base Cleanup recieves:
Johan Santana ($49), Derek Lee ($23), Carl Crawford ($40), John Rausch (N/A).
Team Foreskin recieves:
Brian McCann ($17), Adam Wainwright ($5), Brett Myers ($8), Nick Swisher ($9).
There it is. The most lopsided trade in fantasy history. And I was the guy who gave up that smorgasbord of perennial fantasy superstars. Right now you are saying to yourself, "How could that happen, the Deeb?," "Did Josh Hamilton give you his excess crack before the season?"
Most of the time I think of myself as a pretty rational person. And no, I didn't have to resort to anti-depressants after accepting this trade. Why on earth would I do this? To fully understand the logic behind giving up such huge names, lets delve into the league rules.
This league is a 12 team auction keeper league. Players may be kept for 3 years. Up to 7 players may be kept each season. Guys who are young, cheap and overperforming their auction value are the best players to own in the long term.
Back to the trade. Adam Wainwright for Johan Santana. Carl Crawford for Brian McCann. John Rausch for Brett Myers. Derek Lee for Nick Swisher. That's how this trade would break down individually, if they were individual deals. None of those deals would be done straight up. Why does it work as a package deal? Why was I interested in getting the players I got? Why the hell did I give up 3 perennial all-stars and, at the time, an emerging closer who was performing at a high level? Four words: Adam Wainwright, Brian McCann.
At the time of the trade, the only appreciable difference between Johan Santana and Adam Wainwright in statistical terms was that one of them was named Johan Santana and one was named Adam Wainwright. Wainwright was, by all accounts, having a better statisical season than Santana at that point in all categories except strikeouts. And even K's we're closer than one might expect. Wainwright is younger than Santana, significantly. Most important to me, Wainwright was 1/10th of the auction cost of Santana -- an incredible return on investment. In this one young starter, I saw a fixture of my staff for 2009 and 2010. Santana, by contrast, was a guy who had a reputation for being the best fantasy pitcher alive but hadn't really lived up to that in 2008. And at 49 bones, I was completely unwilling to bring him back.
Brian McCann is the best fantasy catcher in baseball. Since I've traded for him, McCann has made his third consecutive All-Star game. No other catcher in the history of baseball has done that. Read that last line again. McCann is a stud. Period. Carl Crawford is an elite fantasy player and if you break this trade into parts, he's the part that got me McCann. Carl Crawford does have a very fatal flaw in this league, however. OPS. My league includes OPS. If Carl Crawford were to suddenly start demanding that his accomplishments be listed off by a town crier every time he enters a room, the record would have to say "Stealer of bases, destroyer of Batting Average, OPS." He doesn't walk. He doesn't really hit for power. And his career average does not suggest that he's got a .340 season in him to bouy that OPS. What he does do is steal bases. He also makes a ton of outs and gets a ton of plate appearances due to his placement in the order. If your team is not full of patient, power hitters, your batting average and OPS ( or OBP) will take a plunge downward. You need a very specific team to support the negative aspects of Crawford's game.
At this point, ancillary players needed to be included to pull this deal off. Derek Lee was coming off of an incredible start to the season, but had had an OPS lower than .600 in the 4 weeks prior to the trade. Conversely, Nick Swisher was having a terrible statistical season -- or was he? At the time of the trade, Nick Swisher's Line Drive percentage was higher than his batting average. Significantly. What was Nick Swisher then? Supremely unlucky. And he was much cheaper and younger than Derek Lee. Since the trade, Swisher has been an equivalent or better player than Lee.
John Rausch was a player that had no value to me because I wasn't competing in saves or in 2008. His value was limited by the timetable of Chad Cordero's return. As soon as Cordero was back, Rausch was back to the wavier wire. Brett Myers was simply a cheap, keepable, upside pitcher that I took a gamble on. The guy has tremendous stuff and I didn't really have many keepable pitching options.
Names shouldn't be considered in trades. If you go by the names in this trade, I clearly lost. However, when you look at the stats (ie the only things that actually matter in fantasy), I won. Easily. Don't be afraid to take a chance on young, excellent talent at the expense of known, aging guys.
Third Base Cleanup recieves:
Johan Santana ($49), Derek Lee ($23), Carl Crawford ($40), John Rausch (N/A).
Team Foreskin recieves:
Brian McCann ($17), Adam Wainwright ($5), Brett Myers ($8), Nick Swisher ($9).
There it is. The most lopsided trade in fantasy history. And I was the guy who gave up that smorgasbord of perennial fantasy superstars. Right now you are saying to yourself, "How could that happen, the Deeb?," "Did Josh Hamilton give you his excess crack before the season?"
Most of the time I think of myself as a pretty rational person. And no, I didn't have to resort to anti-depressants after accepting this trade. Why on earth would I do this? To fully understand the logic behind giving up such huge names, lets delve into the league rules.
This league is a 12 team auction keeper league. Players may be kept for 3 years. Up to 7 players may be kept each season. Guys who are young, cheap and overperforming their auction value are the best players to own in the long term.
Back to the trade. Adam Wainwright for Johan Santana. Carl Crawford for Brian McCann. John Rausch for Brett Myers. Derek Lee for Nick Swisher. That's how this trade would break down individually, if they were individual deals. None of those deals would be done straight up. Why does it work as a package deal? Why was I interested in getting the players I got? Why the hell did I give up 3 perennial all-stars and, at the time, an emerging closer who was performing at a high level? Four words: Adam Wainwright, Brian McCann.
At the time of the trade, the only appreciable difference between Johan Santana and Adam Wainwright in statistical terms was that one of them was named Johan Santana and one was named Adam Wainwright. Wainwright was, by all accounts, having a better statisical season than Santana at that point in all categories except strikeouts. And even K's we're closer than one might expect. Wainwright is younger than Santana, significantly. Most important to me, Wainwright was 1/10th of the auction cost of Santana -- an incredible return on investment. In this one young starter, I saw a fixture of my staff for 2009 and 2010. Santana, by contrast, was a guy who had a reputation for being the best fantasy pitcher alive but hadn't really lived up to that in 2008. And at 49 bones, I was completely unwilling to bring him back.
Brian McCann is the best fantasy catcher in baseball. Since I've traded for him, McCann has made his third consecutive All-Star game. No other catcher in the history of baseball has done that. Read that last line again. McCann is a stud. Period. Carl Crawford is an elite fantasy player and if you break this trade into parts, he's the part that got me McCann. Carl Crawford does have a very fatal flaw in this league, however. OPS. My league includes OPS. If Carl Crawford were to suddenly start demanding that his accomplishments be listed off by a town crier every time he enters a room, the record would have to say "Stealer of bases, destroyer of Batting Average, OPS." He doesn't walk. He doesn't really hit for power. And his career average does not suggest that he's got a .340 season in him to bouy that OPS. What he does do is steal bases. He also makes a ton of outs and gets a ton of plate appearances due to his placement in the order. If your team is not full of patient, power hitters, your batting average and OPS ( or OBP) will take a plunge downward. You need a very specific team to support the negative aspects of Crawford's game.
At this point, ancillary players needed to be included to pull this deal off. Derek Lee was coming off of an incredible start to the season, but had had an OPS lower than .600 in the 4 weeks prior to the trade. Conversely, Nick Swisher was having a terrible statistical season -- or was he? At the time of the trade, Nick Swisher's Line Drive percentage was higher than his batting average. Significantly. What was Nick Swisher then? Supremely unlucky. And he was much cheaper and younger than Derek Lee. Since the trade, Swisher has been an equivalent or better player than Lee.
John Rausch was a player that had no value to me because I wasn't competing in saves or in 2008. His value was limited by the timetable of Chad Cordero's return. As soon as Cordero was back, Rausch was back to the wavier wire. Brett Myers was simply a cheap, keepable, upside pitcher that I took a gamble on. The guy has tremendous stuff and I didn't really have many keepable pitching options.
Names shouldn't be considered in trades. If you go by the names in this trade, I clearly lost. However, when you look at the stats (ie the only things that actually matter in fantasy), I won. Easily. Don't be afraid to take a chance on young, excellent talent at the expense of known, aging guys.
In the beginning...
One of us works for a hedge fund. The other one is an English major. Is there a clearer way to state that we have no discernible skills?
What we do have is the propensity to think...and talk...about fantasy sports for long periods of time. We've been doing it with each other for almost 5 years, and we decided it's time to share our thoughts with you.
So, welcome to "Most Likely to Succeed," a destination that seeks to look past player projections and laundry lists and provide actual discourse on how, and more importantly, why we have achieved success in the world of fantasy sports. We hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we do.
What we do have is the propensity to think...and talk...about fantasy sports for long periods of time. We've been doing it with each other for almost 5 years, and we decided it's time to share our thoughts with you.
So, welcome to "Most Likely to Succeed," a destination that seeks to look past player projections and laundry lists and provide actual discourse on how, and more importantly, why we have achieved success in the world of fantasy sports. We hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)