Sadly, the NFBC team building fun comes to a close. To go along with my splendid $14 offense, I attempted to assemble a $246 pitching staff using NFBC average auction values from Feb 1 and on. Although I succeeding in spending all my money when buying a dominant offense to go with my $9 pitching staff, I left two bucks on the table here for my ultimate pitching staff, only spending $244 of the $246 I had available.
Last week I decided to have a bit of fun by building various starting hitter rosters and pitching staffs based on NFBC average auction values (AAVs). One of those exercises was building a $9 pitching staff. It’s something I always wanted to try in my local 12-team mixed league, but have never really come close to executing on. It’s very difficult to do because you’ll likely end up overpaying for your offense just to spend that $251, since the top players’ prices typically get pushed higher than the value they are projected to earn. Sure, your $9 pitching staff is likely to be projected to earn more than $9, but overall, you’re not going to leave the auction with a roster forecasted to earn anywhere near the profit you could if just playing it straight as a value-based auctioner.
Yesterday, I assembled a 14-player offense from the hitters who weren’t bought in NFBC auctions since Feb 1. Today, let’s flip over to the pitching side.
On Monday, I built a $14 offense using only $1 players from the NFBC average auction values starting Feb 1. My player pool to choose from for that exercise was 59 players. But what about those that weren’t purchased at all? Surely they could have been had for a buck, too! That group is now my pool to choose from for this thrilling offense. As a reminder, there were seven auctions run since Feb 1, so this 14-player offense will be solely composed of hitters who failed to be bought in any of them.
Yesterday, I built a $14 NFBC offense using their average auction values and limiting myself to an entire squad of $1 hitters. Today, let’s now build a $9 pitching staff. Unfortunately, I only had 40 pitchers to choose from, but I could guarantee you, my selections would put fear into the minds of all my leaguemates if I finished the auction with this sweet, sweet crew.
Last year, I debuted a series of posts using NFBC average auction values (AAV). It was a jolly good time, so I’m going to do it again this season. Once again, I’ll start by building a $14 offense. That’s right, 14 hitters, all just a buck. Isn’t that exciting?! I can only imagine the thrills that will be had choosing between players most fantasy owners have no desire to roster. But think of how amazing you $246 pitching staff would be!
Yesterday, I used my xHR/FB rate equation to identify and discuss the hitters whose actual HR/FB rates most underperformed. Today, let’s flip to the other end of the spectrum — those hitters whose actual HR/FB rates significantly exceeded their xHR/FB rates.
Finally, it’s time for the main event! After weeks discussing the history and research, correlations, the xHR/FB v4.0 equation itself, and various xHR/FB rate components, we now set our sights toward 2021. Today, I will identify and discuss a handful of fantasy relevant names that underperformed their xHR/FB rates most significantly. Remember that this doesn’t automatically mean we should be projecting a higher HR/FB rate this season. But perhaps rather than take the hitter’s actual HR/FB rate at face value, we should substitute our xHR/FB rate mark when reviewing his historical marks and making a 2021 projection.
Last week, I used my xHR/FB v4.0 equation to share the names of the hitters who either enjoyed a HR/FB rate surge from 2019 or posted a surprise mark in 2020 after not playing in 2019. The wrinkle is that these players all posted xHR/FB rates that validated the HR/FB rate spikes. Today, let’s discuss hitters on the opposite end of the spectrum — those that suffered a surprise decline in HR/FB rate that was confirmed as a legit falloff by xHR/FB rate.
On Tuesday night, the competitors of the LABR Mixed drafted virtually congregated for our annual early/mid-February 15-team draft. Drafts this early are tough, because although in some respects it benefits the prepared and the more highly skilled, there are also many unknowns at this point of the offseason, that once known, could alter a player’s or multiple players’ values, perhaps significantly. In addition, all this additional time between the draft and opening day means more opportunity for injuries to decimate your roster before the season begins! So as a result, and although I’m not sure if this is even mathematically possible, it feels like the early draft time requires both more skill and more luck. Anyway, let’s get to the draft results. The full draft could be found here.
