Chronicles of Ottoneu: Win A Team!
You may have heard that FanGraphs got a fantasy game. It’s hard to contain my excitement, but let’s start with some pithy slogans!
No People Herding!
This auction dynasty is open year-round, so commissioners don’t have to email everyone to remind them to get their keepers in, and what were their players’ prices again, and what did they want to do with those two hurt guys again and what happened to Charlie and did Jim change his email or is he just on his annual three-week trek to the Harry Baals Community Center for that Baccarat Tournament?
No, the game is there waiting. It’s always there.
No Spreadsheets!
Related to that fact is the great fact that you won’t need a spreadsheet to keep track of your team. You won’t need one during the offseason in order to keep rosters straight. And you won’t need one during the season to keep track of budgets or prospects. 40 roster spots, 12 teams, with your budget spent and available all clearly noted. It’s deep, and it’s all in one place. We won’t miss the annual boondoggery over who actually owns Jordan Schafer because he’s on two spreadsheets in different places, will we?
No Saves or Steals (Unless You Want Them)!
There are three scoring systems, so if you want steals and saves – despite their tenuous relationship to winning real-life baseball games – you can keep them! [And we’ll have a closer report and middle reliever report every week in order to keep you updated if that’s the way you like to roll, of course.]
But if you don’t like those stats, give em the heave-ho. The Linear Weights scoring system – which will be uncovered a little more on Friday – uses the actual, researched value of each baseball event to assign points to the players. That’s, uh, pretty durn close to approximating real-life baseball strategy in a fantasy game.
And if you can’t make up your mind, we’ve got the hybrid 4×4 roto system, which we’ll also get into more later on.
No Silly Snake Drafts!
Well, this is just an auction thing. But combining auction with a year-round keeper league format is a unique aspect of this game. And it leads to some pretty sweet trade discussions. Consider the case of Chase Utley in ottoneu One, the original league that spawned this beautiful game.
At the end of the season, the $46 Utley was a little too expensive for Niv Shah’s team. At more than 10% of his overall budget ($400), Utley had outstripped his value even in a league with an MI roster spot. So Shah traded Utley for a $14 Matt Garza. (Unsatisfied with the extra money, Niv looked to the future and unloaded Garza for a $4 Brett Lawrie, hoping he’d be a starter by the time he cost $6.) The new owner wanted power and traded Utley once again for a $42 Adam Dunn – obviously he felt that Dunn will enjoy his new digs. The final owner of Chase Utley is now debating whether or not he should trade Utley for a $19 Brandon Phillips.
And, if you went to Chase Utley’s player page in the ottoneu game, not only would you see all his relevant stats, but you’d also see his transaction history within your game in order to marvel at Utley’s travels.
For a free ottoneu fantasy team, make your strongest argument for the answer to the following question in the comments section. I’ll judge the best answer near the end of the day today.
Which trade outlined above, proposed or completed, provided the most lopsided value for one side or the other, and why?
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
As is always the answer LOL, it depends… you can’t necessarily grade a trade by the value of the players themselves, but how it helps each team overall in the league standings. If I am killing in three of four offensive categories and need real help in the fourth, I’m willing to do a “lopsided” trade if I know it will help me in that fourth category and it won’t hurt me in the other three.
I would have to say Garza for Lawrie is the most lopsided… as a Jays fan this hurts me to say lol, but Lawrie wont play in 2011 (maybe a September call-up) and should be very cheap at next years auction aswell. Although you are banking on Wrigley not hurting Garza as much as some experts believe, he is still moving from the AL east to he NL. Also Utley 4 Garza, Utley 4 Dunn, both are slightly overpaid players being traded for eachother and if the player acquiring Dunn needed power then they both won the deal thus not being lopsided
I say that it has to be Utley for Garza. I know the trader saves a lot of money, but there’s a reason why there is $28 difference in their values. Utley is undoubtedly one of the best players in baseball, who will do everything for a fantasy team. Not only does he get on base and hit homeruns, but he also hits for average. He basically does everything you can ask for in one player, and had a very good year last year in only 115 games. Garza, on the other hand, is just a guy. He’s nothing overly special, and his FIP suggest he may regress to be even worse. On top of that, if you are going to trade Garza for Lawrie, why not just use Utley’s value to get multiple guys similar to Lawrie for cheap? In short, why trade one of baseball’s top players for what ultimately was one prospect, when another team would probably be willing to give up multiple prospects for Utley, straight up.
Mike D does have a point there, but if one looks at this in a vacuum, one can grade these trades. Utley for Garza looks like a potentially lopsided trade. the fans project Utley for 6.9 WAR, while Garza is projected for 2.8 WAR, so on a talent level, it is clearly lopsided. considering the contracts, this trade should make more sense, as Utley is paid $6.67 per win, while Garza costs $5 per win.
The Lawrie for Garza trade has the potential to be lopsided too, because Lawrie is regarded as a very good infield prospect, while Garza at age 27 is very close to his peak. you’re essentialy trading talent now for future talent, as Lawrie isn’t expected to contribute very much this year. so while Lawrie is very talented, this trade shouldn’t yet be called lopsided.
Swapping Utley for Phillips does make sense if you need the extra money; phillips is projected for 3.4 WAR, but is cheaper than Utley on a per win basis ($5.59), so this trade is, just as the Garza trade not really lopsided.
But then there’s the Adam Dunn for Chase Utley trade…
while Dunn’s projected WAR (2.9) is comparable to Garza’s, his salary is obviously a lot higher. Dunn comes in at $14.48 per win; more than double the price of Utley. if you really need the extra power, you’d be better served by signing a player like Jack Cust or Marcus Thames.
this trade is both on the talent level and on the financial level the most lopsided trade of the bunch in my opinion.
I don’t want to say too much since I’m involved in this league (and am overly opinionated), but I would just quickly point out that there is a slight flaw to using WAR in this analysis, which is that it incorporates defense, which while clearly valuable, hasn’t quite found its proper place in fantasy games quite yet.
that’s true, so let’s see what it would look like without the defense:
the projected defensive value in runs for these position players is:
Utley: +11
Dunn:-6
Phillips: +7
considering that 10 runs are needed to get 1 extra win, the WAR without defense for these players would be:
Utley: 5.8
Dunn:3.5
Phillips 2.7
and the $ per win would be:
Utley $7.93
Dunn: $12.00
Phillips:$7.03
as we can see: the margins become smaller, but the Utley for Dunn trade is still the most lopsided here.
I have been reading a lot about Ottoneu, it’s really so much more interesting than what I’ve been playing. (Snake Draft, Head to Head, 5×5… … I know, gruesome. What can I say, my friends suck and always say, “If you play roto, you’ll never be able to make a comeback mid season. -_- …but I digress.)
These trades are also very interesting. Of course, the best way to analyze each trade is to know which format you’re actually playing. I’m guessing with some of the screen shots posted, it has to be Ottoneu Classic 4×4. (OBP. SLG, HR, R x ERA, WHIP, HR/9, K)
I have to say both trades of Chase Utley for Matt Garza and Chase Utley for Adam Dunn are the most lopsided, all things considered.
Looking at a few sortable stats from their last full healthy seasons, this is what I saw:
Chase Utley: 2006: .379, .527, 32, 131
Chase Utley: 2008: .380, .535, 33, 113
Chase Utley: 2009: .397, .508, 31, 112
Adam Dunn: 2008: .386, .513, 40, 79
Adam Dunn: 2009: .398, .529, 38, 81
Adam Dunn: 2010: .356, .536, 38, 85
Matt Garza: 2008: 3.70, 1.24, 0.93, 128
Matt Garza: 2009: 3.95, 1.26, 1.11, 189
Matt Garza: 2010: 3.91, 1.25, 1.23, 150
According to FanGraphs projections, Matt Garza is projected to give up the third most HR of the season and you have to ask yourself, is that worth $32? Yes, I do know his ERA isn’t horrible and his WHIP is actually impressive, but I really don’t think you can make up for the loss of Chase Utley with $32. (Of course this could be an amazing trade, but I can’t see the rest of the team.)
Now with Adam Dunn, it’s almost a no brainer. Let me ask you this, would you pay an extra $4 for 30 runs? Not only 30 extra runs, but 30 extra runs from a MI position! I’m sure I can make a dent in other categories with the plethora of selections at the 1B category.
With Chase Utley’s salary, it is shouldn’t be a problem. He is currently getting paid more than 10% of the Phillies payroll, so that shouldn’t be an issue for Ottoneu, especially if Ottoneu Fantasy Baseball is supposed to exude realism. Of course, I wouldn’t mind paying Chase Utley a bit over 10% of my payroll budget because currently, as a Giants fan, 33% of our payroll is going to Zito and Rowand. >.<
This is an amazing fantasy game!!! I love the control each player has.
As much as I’d like to agree with this analysis (I am the one who traded Dunn for Utley) you do something kind of strange here in that you cherry pick healthy seasons without noting that Utley is the only one of the three to have had an UNhealthy season in the last three (including a down year in 2010, which you ignore). That downside risk is a very real factor.
Defending my “cherry picking”:
You’re right, I should have acknowledged that I was leaving out years 2007 and 2010, but I wanted each player to have played at least 150 games. Hell, at least 140. In 2007, there were only 132 games played, and last year there were only 115. (In which, I would still like to note that he averaged 19 HR and 89.5 R. Also, in 2007 & 2010 he posted a .410, .566 & .387 .445 respectively. The numbers are not that bad for unhealthy seasons.)
One drafts their players and hopes for healthy seasons. A $46 500 AB Chase Utley is still better than a $42 558 AB Adam Dunn just because of efficiency with ABs AND the huge drop off of talent in the MI pool.
For the sake of argument, let’s just throw 2010 out the window, Chase Utley has never scored less than 93 runs (2005), 22 HR, (2007) .376 OBP (2005), and .527 SLG (2006). Those are his worst stats basically in his career.
Chase Utley is accurately priced at $46. Not saying it’s GREAT value, just accurately priced.
Thanks for replying and reading through my analysis. It was fun. (I’m guessing I’m out of the running of a free team because I dissed your trade? Sorry, sir.)
My friend Chad has no say in who gets a free team. Only Eno can make that call.
Yeah, as Niv said, I have no say in anything – and you didn’t diss my trade, you made it sound like I made a huge steal!
I clearly prefer Utley to Dunn, and I absolutely agree that, dollar for dollar, 80% of Utley seems better than 100% of Dunn. What I am concerned about is that potential to end up with 60% or 20% or 0% of Utley. My trade partner acquired far more certainty – Dunn shouldn’t have health issues and should see some nice benefits from playing in U.S. Cellular. Utley should be better – but if he gets hurt again, this trade could look ugly for me.
BRANDON WINS! BRANDON WINS!
More so for his process than actual result, Brandon reasoned this one out best.
Brandon – email me at enosarris at hotmail once you sign up and we’ll get you reimbursed.
The rest of you – thanks for playing, there were some really good responses. We’ll do this again next week, so keep an eye out.
Trades are never lopsided and have no winners. Though I must admit that Utley should provide strong value for the next 25 years based on my aging model.
/bradbury’d
wake me up when you figure out how to assign points for advanced defensive metrics…
the +/- system could be a start
The answer has to be Brett Lawrie for Garza based on net present value (NPV) of the players involved.
NPV is equal to the current value of the stream of fantasy value (good article on calculating this on HBTs) produced by each player over the period they would be kept minus the cost (including opportunity cost) of that player discounted for uncertainty given to each player.
Everyone but Lawrie has an established major league track record and the owners involved had a better idea of what they were getting with Dunn, Garza, Phillips and Utley. Owners could have been filing needs which would make these trades logical given the circumstance but illogical in a vaccum (i.e for this discussion). We have no idea about what the standings or the rest of the trading partners teams looked like. So while a trade may seem lopsided, the marginal utlity gains achieved by both teams could mean the trade was more even then at first glance. Given the limited info, we can only analysis these trades given the known information
We know the Ottoneu format doesn’t particularly suit Garza’s strengths (average K’s, flyball pitcher now in a homer happy park), but with Garza you know what you are going to get. The move to a more homer friendly park should be offset by a move to the NL Central from the AL East. (Increased Hr/9 vs. decreased WHIP, increased Ks . Neutral effect on ERA?) For $14 you get a low cost #3/4 starter with possible upside given the move from the AL East. More importantly, you know what you are going to get now. The discount rate is low.
We do know one thing for sure and that is Lawrie has no major league track record. He could be the next Utley or he could be the next Alex Gordon. When calculating the NPV of Lawrie, the discount rate has to be higher given the uncertainty of his success in the major leagues if he ever gets to the majors. Given the high discount rate, Lawrie’s NPV would be the lowest out of any player.
With Lawrie you have no clue what you are getting. His minor league record indicates he is speedy MI player with some pop. Ottoenu doesn’t suit Lawrie’s strengths either (his 30 SBs in AA last year provide no roto value). As a quick n’ dirty measure of what we could expect from him in the major leagues I’ll compare his AA wOBA versus 2011 projections of MLB 2nd basemen. His wOBA last year in AA was .361 which would put him between Zobrist and Uggla as the 7th best 2nd basemen. Lawrie is still young, only 21, so he still has time to develop, but we just don’t know what he’s going to do and his upside in the Ottoneu scoring system just doesn’t seem higher than a middle of the pack second basemen.
Sure, buying a lotto ticket COULD net you $100m but we KNOW it will cost a dollar.
Quite honestly, this was probably the best trade made because a -$10 (salary difference) lotto ticket is worth a solid 2B. Wouldn’t you gladly throw away Matt Garza for a chance at an elite second baseman? Wouldn’t you even throw away a Matt Garza for a cheap solid 2B? Which makes my point even more that sending Chase Utley for Adam Dunn or Matt Garza is so, so lopsided.
If this is using 5×5 normal roto then utley for philips has the potential to be the best deal getting a player comparable to Utley for half the price.
using the 4×4 the dunn side in the utley trade wins if utley has a year more like 2010 then any of the other years, otherwise trading for Utley and his second base eligiblity makes him more valueable then having dunn at around the same value as an OF/1B.
Garza just got traded to a place that makes flyball pitchers not as worthwhile, offset by being in the national league instead of the AL east.
The real winner is whoever traded garza for Utley.
It turns out that Niv is the big loser in this set of trades, though to no fault of his own; after all, there was no way to know that Lawrie would, weeks after the trade, be sitting in the dugout with Jim Bouton and invent a dugout snack that combines sunflower seeds with Pop Rocks. The product, marketed as “Snapz”, goes on to be successful and is eventually bought out by sunflower giant David(TM), earning the pair several million dollars. Sadly, something goes awry in the testing phase and Lawrie engages in a particularly violent “snap”, which takes away a quarter of his tongue and necessitates season-ending dental surgery. Even after returning to the field, Lawrie is shaken every time he makes solid contact on a pitch, recalling the horrible, disfiguring kernel that cost him so dearly. Lawrie goes .235/.324/.361 the following year, and spends the majority of it wallowing in regret.
@ Brandon.
The problem is you are getting rid of Garza who is useful now for a chance at an unknown (Option A Elite 2nd, Option B useful 2nd and Option C usless 2nd).
The analysis really revolves around how good you think Lawrie is going to be and when. If you think he is a can’t-miss, elite 2nd prospect due up in the majors in 2012 than obviosuly taking the flier on him makes sense. Check his stats though, his production in AA doesn’t scream Ottoenu stud. I just say there is a large risk there, the upside is low and the benefits are far into the future, which to me screams low value. He is likely going to be available at some time before he is usefill at a price less than $6.
Also, you have to replace Garza on your staff. Possibly some $1 pitching studs were available or you had an almost as strong pitcher on your bench. We don’t know, but we do know that the $10 savings has to be be put tp use to make up the difference between Garza and Player X. Afterall, in real life you pocket to salary savings and buy other stuff, in fantasy land you need to do something with it.
I agree that Utley is an amazing @ 2nd but his injury risk and declining stats give cause for concern. Depending on an owner’s risk tolerance Utley could be discounted to a (value/$) level going forward less than Dunn or Garza.
It is easy to talk about Lawrie being awesome or solid, but aren’t all other outcomes more likely (never makes majors, gets hurt, gets stuck behind someone at 2nd, is just okay, sorta sucks).
Allow me to preface this by saying, the back and forth is fun. I’m having a blast talking ball.
You know my position already. I think a $46 Utley for a $14 Garza is just bad. $32 to find an Utley replacement or a combination of players, is almost impossible, IF Utley stays healthy.
Then the trade from Garza to Lawrie almost saves the whole situation because yes, Lawrie could become nothing. Anything can happen, but his young age is a double edged sword… he can definitely, “never makes majors, gets hurt, gets stuck behind someone at 2nd, is just okay, sorta sucks” BUT BUT BUT, what if he gets to become the Matt Wieters type of hype? What if people start buying Jed Lawrie stock like how much they’re paying for Jason Heyward?! He wouldn’t have to do anything in major league level to have trade bait value.
That’s the problem with the Garza. His $14 salary doesn’t really have any room for AMAZING value? Certainly not what one would have with Chase Utley in the lineup.
Replacing Garza is not that difficult. With the $10 difference, just acquire 10 $1 pitchers and see if it sticks. Give it 6 months from the trade and maybe Jed Lawrie can land a trade in getting Jonathan Sanchez, Gio Gonzalez, Javier Vazquez, etc. etc.
You know what I mean? It works so well. You can save yourself with the loss of Garza, perhaps even improve it. Once you lose Chase Utley to a $14 Garza… Garza will not be attracting anyone but prospects.
@ Brandon,
Kevin does a good job of making some points I missed. I think your points that although not contributing signigicant value now, he is a valuable trade chip is a fair point, although I think we’d all prefer an asset that both appreciated and produced value, someone like a Mike Stanton.
I think if we look at the whole Utley–>Garza–>Lawrie trade sequence looked at as one exchange is the worst.
Original Utley owner needed to shed salary. He makes the move for Garza which could be defendable from a salary dump point of view. He got a useful, albeit not great piece back in Garza assuming that he needed pitching and still was in contention. He giving Utley probably could have gotten better something back then Garza but we assume Garza filled some need.
This owner then moves Garza for Lawrie for additional salary relief and gets a minor league prospect not likely to see major league playing time any time soon. Why not just move Utley for someone better than Lawrie in the first place?
Two crappy transactions that should be viewed as one terrible move.
also why is no one mentioning that lawrie is being moved to 3rd base, and may end up being an outfielder in the very end. he’s NOT a 2nd baseman
on the other hand, if he develops like jeff kent, the player he is quite often compared to, it wouldnt be too bad, regardless of his position
Utley for Garza is the most lopsided because Garza may not even reach his expected value of $14. Garza will likely decline after his move to Chicago.
There are probably numerous pitchers with similar dollar value or lower dollar value that will produce more this year and in years to come.
Trading Utley straight up for a prospect or younger player such as one of Tampa’s young arms would have probably been a better value than Garza because they have a chance to increase their stock later. It’s all about investment; this person did a strict salary dump instead of considering his best investment option. Even if Lawrie pans out, he still could have gotten more for Garza, which could have netted him more than Lawrie.
The worst trade of this bunch is Lawrie for Garza. Specifically, acquiring Lawrie.
With the Blue Jays holding options for Aaron Hill through 2014, Lawrie won’t be up to play 2B full-time until 2015 at the earliest. Assuming he moves to third, he will most likely need one year in the minors to transition, then need another 1/2 year (at least) to transition to the big leagues. That means, best case scenario, you need to carry him for 2 years before he can be a productive member of your roster. So you sink $4 for his 3b-transition year, $5 for the big-league transition year, $7 to be a MLB starter on your roster.
So he has already cost you $9 before he could possibly be a productive member of your team and $16 by the time he could be starting. Garza’s move from AL East to NL Central should off-set any ballpark-related increases, so his value at $14 is around fair.
I would prefer to spend $14 on a #3/4 starter for one year of known production vs. a best-case $16 cost for a player that looks like he will move positions and be a MLB-average third baseman.