Death To One-Size-Fits-All
I’m here to introduce or perhaps reinforce an idea today. People always, always, ALWAYS oversimplify things. Why didn’t such-and-such team win? It’s because so-and-so made a bad pitch. We readily gobble up that answer even though it’s probably one of a thousand ways to explain why a team lost a contest. Fantasy baseball has its share of oversimplification too.
Fantasy baseball is a complex beast. I’ve probably written over 30 articles about trading strategy in different leagues, formats, time periods, etc. Each article contains different information than its predecessors. There are tried and true ways of doing things, but always there is another wrinkle, another twist, or another perspective to consider.
Even in these glorified halls, I see commenters eagerly dismiss strategies that diverge from their own line of thinking. This bothers me. It’s why we’re here today. There’s nothing inherently wrong with weighing a strategy and deciding it doesn’t match your skill set as an owner. I’m just concerned that sometimes the weighing part doesn’t happen.
By my own line of thinking, there are two essentials in fantasy strategy.
- Be mentally agile: You can think of this as being ready to hit all pitches. You might go into the draft prepared to hammer a fastball. Then Chris Davis doesn’t show up for the year, and Bryce Harper fizzles, and…you get the picture. Life throws curve balls when you’re sitting fastball. Will you be ready to adjust?
- Always strive to be one step ahead of the competition: In other words, zig when others zag.
They’re related ideas. The first is an ability to react and the second is an ability to predict. In both cases, you’re demonstrating flexibility. A one-size-fits-all strategy is not suited to making adjustments.
Let’s put some examples in play for clarity. For those of you who bother to open ottoneu-related articles, you may have noticed I wrote a few about the arbitration allocation process. There is a generally accepted “best” strategy. It involves maximizing the long term impact of your dollars. The specifics aren’t important. There is also an alternative strategy, which involves pumping more talent into the draft. We’ve had some arguments over the relative merits of both approaches. Partisans emerged and debate grew fierce.
In general, this is a good thing. It’s what I want when I write a strategy article. Discussing the best approach is informative to me and I assume it helps the readers too. I learn about fantasy orthodoxy and taboos. This helps me to fuse together new ways of approaching old problems.
I’m not concerned with ottoneu owners preferring one allocation strategy over another. I’m concerned that a few aren’t even considering the utility of alternative strategies. With this example, the long term approach can be thought of as the “safe” play. The alternative requires a specific use case or disposition. And always there are other, fringier strategies to pursue. They all have their time and place.
Here’s a different type of example. I have a home league that has run for five seasons. This was the first year I didn’t finish first or second (third). I don’t bring this up to brag, but rather because it’s an excellent example of the different ways to skin a cat.
In year one, my top position player targets were too expensive, so I skimped on big ticket items, purchased a first-rate rotation, and finished with a perfect 60 score in pitching (still placed second by 4 runs or one point of OPS). The next two seasons were supported by a clutch of great keepers. By year four, I had cashed in most of the best names. For some reason, closers were spurned in the draft, so I bought five great ones and rode bullpen dominance to the championship. Last year, I dealt one of my last mega-keepers prior to the season (Harper) for a ridiculous haul. The deal carried me for most of the season.
There are a couple strategies that have remained consistent year-to-year. The league has deep rosters with six bench spots and no limit on waiver moves. I frequently turn over starters, relievers, and back end position players. Sometimes my roster is stable for a couple weeks at a time, but I usually eclipse 100 moves. My draft plan has been different every year. I’ve attacked the categories in a handful of ways. It’s possible to succeed in one environment with a variety of strategies.
That’s today’s message. You should seek strategies that are suited to your skill set, and most importantly, fun. Just realize that there are a lot of ways to win any given league. Maybe you should challenge yourself by trying them? You should at least keep an open mind.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
This may seem kinda boring, but what kind of strategy would you have in a shallow 10 team mixed league? Typically I go heavy on hitting the first six rounds, closers late, catcher late, and focus on well balanced players.
This last year, after winning the league two years in a row, I finished third and was incredibly frustrated. I think my biggest problems stemmed from my draft as I took Segura, Myers, Salazar, and Bailey within the first nine rounds. Clearly sophomore players came back to bite me this past year. Likewise, the only two breakouts I had from my team were Kluber and Rizzo, so luck was not in my favor.
I’d do whatever I can to hire 5 category monsters (Gomez, McCutchen, etc) on offense and focus on shallow positions. You need an excellent season across the board to win such a shallow league. The good news is that plenty of great players will filter across the waiver wire, you just have to be in position to grab them
Another good example: your previous article on the value of elite relievers/closers in Ottoneu. I’m a big advocate of the high value of a great bullpen in Ottoneu, partly because it works, and partly because I’m in the minority even in my own league. That makes the price of acquiring great relievers much lower than great players at other positions (and even prospects sometimes), which I’ve found to be an opportunity in the “market”. But the other key factor is the format of Ottoneu makes great RP much, much more valuable than they would be in a roto format. So context is key.
There are hundreds of variations of fantasy baseball leagues out there. They trick is finding the format(s) you like and then learning how you can exploit (fairly) that format in every way possible just to get a small edge over the competition. No one reads the market the same way, which is why player values can swing wildly even among owners in the same league. No strategy fits perfectly in every league. As you’ve said, the big takeaway is being flexible and open-minded to figure out the best way to win each specific league. That takes time, and the best leagues are those full of owners most willing to adapt their strategies year to year as they read you too.
I guess this is a good point to riff on the topic of the article, because I’m the opposite. I’ll acquire a mid to low level closer in Ottoneu at a cheap pricebut I prefer the cheaper reliever route in Ottoneu to standard leagues.
First, the auction style of making waiver acquisitions makes it easier to acquire newly annointed closers or relief studs that get called up during the season. I don’t have to be on the wire 4 seconds after a blown save because the player will have be auctioned. I always missed out on in-season closer changes in other leagues because it was a death battle to be the quickest to pick up a new closer. So I find RP easier to acquire in-season.
Also, good middle relievers are closer in value to closers in Ottoneu because of the points for holds, and you can often pick up near elite middle relievers for $1 or $2.
I don’t disagree with your strategy, though, especially if your league has a bunch of people who think like me and drive down the prices on relievers. I just find my way works for me and I’ve finished in the money in my league both years.
“I don’t disagree with your strategy, though, especially if your league has a bunch of people who think like me and drive down the prices on relievers. ”
This is the critical component. The creation of value can be viewed as an oversight by 12 owners. If 11 owners under-use relievers, then there is a major strategic advantage available. If everyone tries to load up on relief, then it might be best to duck quietly out of the room.
On the other hand, my very strict set of rules for fantasy baseball is clearly the optimal approach, and anybody who suggests otherwise is absurd.
It is like politics when people get entrenched in their own ideas and completely dismiss the other side. It is almost like admitting the other side could have a good point is a slight on them.
An article entitled “Bryce Harper: Guaranteed Top 5 fantasy player 2015” will get more hits than “Bryce Harper: Possible Top 5 or top 50 player “. The 1st article will get people blasting the article or making the idea their own. The 2nd article, while closer to reality, will be seen my many people as wishy washy. The 1st article is a simple agree\disagree decision. The 2nd article makes you think a lot more.
You need to be like a GPS (Recalculating . . . ). The optimal strategy(ies) can change at any moment. All strategies essentially come down to maximizing your chances of success. Generally, of course with exceptions, you want to maximize the value you obtain using all your resources. This gives you the best chances of winning.
The interesting part is trying to determine the viability of a strategy. Just because it worked\didn’t work does not determine the validity. For example, you can say “Always draft player with the name Jose” It worked because you got Bauitista, Altuve and Abreu. 🙂
Also Jose Cisnero and Jose Constanza!
How could you forget Jose Fernandez?
Jose Canseco just asked to be the A’s hitting coach on Twitter.
This is great news! I can change my strategy to draft players who have a “Jose” as their hitting coach.
I have a home league that has run for five seasons. This was the first year I didn’t finish first or second (third). I don’t bring this up to brag, but rather because it’s an excellent example of the different ways to skin a cat.