Different Is More Important Than Correct

We have a somewhat controversial topic on the docket for today’s Fantasy Baseball Strategy 204 session: is it better to have an accurate or unique approach to player valuation? If you read the title, you’ll notice I’ve already led with the lede. I regularly advocate for taking the path least traveled by your rivals. Whether that requires a zig, a zag, or some other three-letter nonsense, it’s so much easier to create value when you aren’t competing for the same resources in the same way.

I don’t have a mathematical proof. I can’t even conceive of a reasonable experiment to test if a contrarian or otherwise unusual method mix outperforms a more straightforward approach. I can point to my personal track record, but perhaps I would do even better by following the consensus. There’s also a very real chance that what works for me might not work for you. After all, silly as it sounds, this is my day job. I’m paid to internalize things about fantasy baseball. I don’t have TPS reports competing for my attention.

Most importantly, recognizing what qualifies as outside the box in your league isn’t always obvious. For more casual formats, simply using straightforward stats from FanGraphs can put you miles ahead of the competition. But what do you do when everybody is up-to-date on the state of the arts? The answer is to hunt for the next frontier. Early movers with Statcast probably enjoyed a couple months head start before their leaguemates adapted. To stay on the frontier requires constant vigilance and effort.

If you’re time constrained or simply realized your next big thing was a dead-end, a cheap trick is to be inefficient. Use your resources strangely. In ottoneu FGpts, I’ve taken to setting only about 100-150 players above replacement level. Since the league rosters 480 players, most owners treat player 480 as the replacement level. I’m of the belief that the best formula for success in ottoneu is a combination of as many elite players as possible plus “free” core talents. The difference between Cesar Hernandez and Joey Wendle is much smaller than that between an elite player and the next tier down.

I don’t mind when my approach produces ludicrously high valuations for top players. It’s by design. It’s helped me to win and contend at a very high rate. I practically don’t have to fight for these players because I acquire them cheaply pre-draft from owners who were going to cut them. I then wait through four hours of the draft to get to the part where I can make my 10 or more $1 picks.

This is probably an example of a strategy that works for me but might not be ideal for you. There’s a ton of pressure on spiking those $1 picks. I’m also certain it’s an inefficient approach. The “best” way to win is to drown in $6 Ronald Acunas and Juan Sotos. Good luck with that though. I picked up my Acuna and Soto shares in February of 2017. Given the bust rate on top prospects – and these weren’t even tip-top guys at the time – I can only say I got lucky* in selectively targeting those two specific players.

*I so wish I could report a can’t-miss process. My ottoneu approach to prospects is “take the best fantasy projection available for $1.” Not exactly novel…

My most commonly used ottoneu strategy makes for a tidy example of emphasizing a different, inefficient approach, but the format lends itself to creativity. Most leagues are 5×5 roto or head-to-head. These offer less scope for employing unusual tactics. If you’re familiar with your leaguemates, knowing their preferences can help. If “reliable” closers are always expensive, then plan to battle for the replacement guys. Similarly, if aces, sluggers, or base thieves are typically over-drafted, build a strategy around a different asset-type.

Fantasy baseball is a closed economy. If you and your rivals all share the same strategy, then it doesn’t matter if it’s the best approach. You can’t create the roster value necessary to win. The competition is too fierce. It’s better to be inefficient and unpopular. Sure, your strategy may have flaws. But with less competition for resources, you’ll usually realize enough value to make up for the inefficiencies.